Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • Spencer was influenced by Lamarckism not Darwinism. But that doesn’t make his ge

    Spencer was influenced by Lamarckism not Darwinism. But that doesn’t make his general arguments less meaningful.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-31 15:12:00 UTC

  • Athens indeed gets the credit for what were often spartan victories. And that is

    Athens indeed gets the credit for what were often spartan victories. And that is because navies (hamiltonian ethics) are more rewarding than armies (jeffersonian ethics).

    And that western europe (france, italy, and britan) had prosperous navies only because germany held the territories against invasion.

    And that rome was prosperous as a naval and trading power that fought with marines, but failed as an army because the cost of holding land was too great.

    So my position (like most of my positions) relies upon the observation that specialization produces better armies, navies, and prosperity. Just as american entrepreneurship, british banking and finance, italian arts, german engineering, and russian military produce specialties that no one could produce on its own.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-31 09:25:00 UTC

  • I think the victorians represent the high point of NAVAL western civilization(At

    I think the victorians represent the high point of NAVAL western civilization(Athens) while the Prussians represent the high point of MARTIAL western civilization (Sparta), and americans Represent the PRAGMATIC high point of western civilization (Rome).

    I think the problem with Russia is that it never developed a middle class and it’s the middle class that morally organizes society into voluntary trusting orders.

    Which is pretty common knowledge in economics.

    Liberty starts with aristocracy but it is distributed as a mass consumption good by the middle classes. Why? Martial orders are involuntarily constructed by commands (warriors), commercial orders are voluntarily constructed by contracts(merchants), and social orders are competitively constructed from norms(priests/public intellectuals).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-31 05:18:00 UTC

  • We Already Had The Second Coming…

    WE ALREADY HAD THE SECOND COMING, AND IT WAS AS CATASTROPHICALLY TRAGIC FOR MANKIND AS THE FIRST TIME AROUND. **What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.*** The difference is one of technological sophistication. The great lies of Jewish and Christian Mysticism, and the great lies of Secular Pseudoscience.

    They feared the truth of Jupiter, Aristotle and Roman Law. They feared the Truth of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche. They created great lies to compensate. The great lies in the hands of women and proles are as powerful as the great truths in the hands of the aristocracy.

  • We Already Had The Second Coming…

    WE ALREADY HAD THE SECOND COMING, AND IT WAS AS CATASTROPHICALLY TRAGIC FOR MANKIND AS THE FIRST TIME AROUND. **What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.*** The difference is one of technological sophistication. The great lies of Jewish and Christian Mysticism, and the great lies of Secular Pseudoscience.

    They feared the truth of Jupiter, Aristotle and Roman Law. They feared the Truth of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche. They created great lies to compensate. The great lies in the hands of women and proles are as powerful as the great truths in the hands of the aristocracy.

  • Tips on Strict Construction

    TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you. What I’ve seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration.

    But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all. It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error. So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation. Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first-principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes. It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgments. Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I CREATED IT TO PREVENT.

  • Tips on Strict Construction

    TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you. What I’ve seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration.

    But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all. It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error. So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation. Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first-principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes. It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgments. Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I CREATED IT TO PREVENT.

  • Specialization In Everything

    Athens indeed gets the credit for what were often spartan victories. And that is because navies (hamiltonian ethics) are more rewarding than armies (jeffersonian ethics). And that western europe (france, italy, and britan) had prosperous navies only because germany held the territories against invasion. And that rome was prosperous as a naval and trading power that fought with marines, but failed as an army because the cost of holding land was too great.

    So my position (like most of my positions) relies upon the observation that specialization produces better armies, navies, and prosperity. Just as american entrepreneurship, british banking and finance, italian arts, german engineering, and russian military produce specialties that no one could produce on its own.

  • Specialization In Everything

    Athens indeed gets the credit for what were often spartan victories. And that is because navies (hamiltonian ethics) are more rewarding than armies (jeffersonian ethics). And that western europe (france, italy, and britan) had prosperous navies only because germany held the territories against invasion. And that rome was prosperous as a naval and trading power that fought with marines, but failed as an army because the cost of holding land was too great.

    So my position (like most of my positions) relies upon the observation that specialization produces better armies, navies, and prosperity. Just as american entrepreneurship, british banking and finance, italian arts, german engineering, and russian military produce specialties that no one could produce on its own.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 13:18:00 UTC