Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • PROPERTARIANISM VS NEOREACTION (NRx) (draft) I tend to see Propertarianism as Po

    PROPERTARIANISM VS NEOREACTION (NRx)

    (draft)

    I tend to see Propertarianism as Post-Neo-Reactionary. Although, it may be more accurate to position NRx as a rationalist program in the continental and moral traditional, and Propertarianism as an analytic program in the anglo scientific tradition – but both making the same criticism: the evolution of the cathedral, the failure of the enlightenment program, and the necessity to return to modernity (science) and away from postmodernism (pseudoscience, cosmopolitanism and neo-puritanism).

    The most important difference is that Propertarianism is not so much reactionary as it is revolutionary. In that literally I am working on a program to cause a revolution. However, I don’t recommend a return to the past at all, but an evolution of the classical liberal model of government that serves the wants and needs of post-industrial individuals, families (or lack of), societies, economies.

    Propertarianism—-NeoReaction

    Scientific————-Rational

    Analytic————–Allegorical

    Solution————-Criticism

    Legal—————–Moral

    Progressive——–Reactionary

    Prescriptive——–Descriptive

    Institutional———Technical

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 23:57:00 UTC

  • Sketch on Obverse/Inverse and Positive/Negative as Context/Rule

    (sketch)
    [I] have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it tangibly as measurement.  The examples I give are the golden(positive) vs the silver rule(negative),  property(positive) vs property rights(negative).  And I want to construct a general rule for requiring both positive(contextual precision) and negative(general rule).  Because I feel its necessary to unify the sciences, philosophy morality and law in order to eliminate ‘escape routes’ by various forms of verbalism, that man will try to employ as a means of circumventing the moral constraint of truth-speaking.

    Differences 
    ———-
    IDENTICAL: indistinguishable from one another.
    FUNGIBLE: each unit of a commodity is replaceable other units of the same commodity.
    SUBSTITUTABLE: performs the same utility in the context of a given purpose.

    MARGINALLY INDIFFERENT: insufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    MARGINALLY DIFFERENT: sufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    COMMENSURABLE: measurable by the same standard.
    INCOMMENSURABLE: having no common standard of measurement.

    Propositions
    —————–
    DECIDABLE: A decision can be made without the addition of external information.
    CALCULABLE: An operation can be performed without the addition of external information.
    DEDUCIBLE: A prediction can be made without the need for external information.
    OPERATIONAL: a conclusion can be reached by a series of existentially possible operations.
    STRICTLY OPERATIONAL : the theory is constructible (i)using existentially possible operations, (ii)does not include use of analogy, (iii)does not require inference (deduction), and (iv) survives all argumentative falsification. 
    ORIGINAL INTENTION (CONTEXT / ARBITRARY PRECISION) : in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    TEXTUAL / NARROW/ TRUE (Conservative – normative and legislative) vs ALLEGORICAL / WIDE / MEANING(judicial) interpretation.
    In textual/Narrow/True (conservative) legal interpretation, a law is analogous to an operational recipe and changes to the recipe must be enacted by the legislature. In Allegorical / Wide / Meaning (Progressive) interpretation, the judges can invent law if they can justify the extension of the principle of the law into new areas of application not considered by it’s authors. In practice conservative TRUTH and progressive MEANING place the construction of law into the hands of the judiciary rather than the hands of the legislature and people.

    HOLMES’ LIE
    ——————
    The life of the law may have been experience but that is not license for judges to write law at will – it is an admission of the failure of legal theorists to develop propertarianism, and to separate the resolution of disputes according to the law, from the development of contracts (legislative law) on behalf of the citizenry. The separation of functions of government is necessary for the defense of the people against tyranny. Holmes justified tyranny with his deceptive use of rationalism.

    Propertarianism
    ———————
    See Wiki (or legal dictionary) Textualism (the law is only what is written in the text), Originalism(the text must be interpreted as the authors intended it) and Strict Constructionism ( which is weak textualism and is not practiced ).

    In Propertarianism, have attempted to prevent deceptions by requiring law be written to include its precision – original intention – as a preamble for any prohibition, thus requiring both the obverse and inverse propositions, such that when conditions fail (precision is exceeded) then we must revert to strict operationalism to construct new law.

    In history, judges ‘discovered’ law, and asked the people (the legislature) to approve it. This constraint – the request for legislative approval – extends the period of resolution of disputes. (Which I address elsewhere.) But under Propertarian Property rights, it should be possible to construct new precision from first principles – or not. If not, then it is not a matter of law, but a matter of contract. If it is a matter of contractual exchange, then it is a legislative matter, not one for the courts to decide.

    Purpose 
    ———–
    The American constitution was an innovative experiment that nearly achieved law in logical form. However, the problem of contextual precision that we came to understand in the twentieth century was not known at the time.

    The purpose of the law is to (negative or inverse) identify and prohibit involuntary operations, and to (positive or obverse) identify and codify voluntary operations.

    Obverse statements determine precision (conditions), that operational analysis can later demonstrate conditions to have exceeded. Such extensions then require new law (new conditions) constructed as Obverse (positive) statements.

    (Much more … but too much of a headache)

  • Sketch on Obverse/Inverse and Positive/Negative as Context/Rule

    (sketch)
    [I] have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it tangibly as measurement.  The examples I give are the golden(positive) vs the silver rule(negative),  property(positive) vs property rights(negative).  And I want to construct a general rule for requiring both positive(contextual precision) and negative(general rule).  Because I feel its necessary to unify the sciences, philosophy morality and law in order to eliminate ‘escape routes’ by various forms of verbalism, that man will try to employ as a means of circumventing the moral constraint of truth-speaking.

    Differences 
    ———-
    IDENTICAL: indistinguishable from one another.
    FUNGIBLE: each unit of a commodity is replaceable other units of the same commodity.
    SUBSTITUTABLE: performs the same utility in the context of a given purpose.

    MARGINALLY INDIFFERENT: insufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    MARGINALLY DIFFERENT: sufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    COMMENSURABLE: measurable by the same standard.
    INCOMMENSURABLE: having no common standard of measurement.

    Propositions
    —————–
    DECIDABLE: A decision can be made without the addition of external information.
    CALCULABLE: An operation can be performed without the addition of external information.
    DEDUCIBLE: A prediction can be made without the need for external information.
    OPERATIONAL: a conclusion can be reached by a series of existentially possible operations.
    STRICTLY OPERATIONAL : the theory is constructible (i)using existentially possible operations, (ii)does not include use of analogy, (iii)does not require inference (deduction), and (iv) survives all argumentative falsification. 
    ORIGINAL INTENTION (CONTEXT / ARBITRARY PRECISION) : in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    TEXTUAL / NARROW/ TRUE (Conservative – normative and legislative) vs ALLEGORICAL / WIDE / MEANING(judicial) interpretation.
    In textual/Narrow/True (conservative) legal interpretation, a law is analogous to an operational recipe and changes to the recipe must be enacted by the legislature. In Allegorical / Wide / Meaning (Progressive) interpretation, the judges can invent law if they can justify the extension of the principle of the law into new areas of application not considered by it’s authors. In practice conservative TRUTH and progressive MEANING place the construction of law into the hands of the judiciary rather than the hands of the legislature and people.

    HOLMES’ LIE
    ——————
    The life of the law may have been experience but that is not license for judges to write law at will – it is an admission of the failure of legal theorists to develop propertarianism, and to separate the resolution of disputes according to the law, from the development of contracts (legislative law) on behalf of the citizenry. The separation of functions of government is necessary for the defense of the people against tyranny. Holmes justified tyranny with his deceptive use of rationalism.

    Propertarianism
    ———————
    See Wiki (or legal dictionary) Textualism (the law is only what is written in the text), Originalism(the text must be interpreted as the authors intended it) and Strict Constructionism ( which is weak textualism and is not practiced ).

    In Propertarianism, have attempted to prevent deceptions by requiring law be written to include its precision – original intention – as a preamble for any prohibition, thus requiring both the obverse and inverse propositions, such that when conditions fail (precision is exceeded) then we must revert to strict operationalism to construct new law.

    In history, judges ‘discovered’ law, and asked the people (the legislature) to approve it. This constraint – the request for legislative approval – extends the period of resolution of disputes. (Which I address elsewhere.) But under Propertarian Property rights, it should be possible to construct new precision from first principles – or not. If not, then it is not a matter of law, but a matter of contract. If it is a matter of contractual exchange, then it is a legislative matter, not one for the courts to decide.

    Purpose 
    ———–
    The American constitution was an innovative experiment that nearly achieved law in logical form. However, the problem of contextual precision that we came to understand in the twentieth century was not known at the time.

    The purpose of the law is to (negative or inverse) identify and prohibit involuntary operations, and to (positive or obverse) identify and codify voluntary operations.

    Obverse statements determine precision (conditions), that operational analysis can later demonstrate conditions to have exceeded. Such extensions then require new law (new conditions) constructed as Obverse (positive) statements.

    (Much more … but too much of a headache)

  • SKETCH (massive headache so gotta stop for today – but might be interesting to s

    SKETCH

    (massive headache so gotta stop for today – but might be interesting to some)

    Differences

    ———-

    IDENTICAL: indistinguishable from one another.

    FUNGIBLE: each unit of a commodity is replaceable other units of the same commodity.

    SUBSTITUTABLE: performs the same utility in the context of a given purpose.

    MARGINALLY INDIFFERENT: insufficiently different to cause a change in state.

    MARGINALLY DIFFERENT: sufficiently different to cause a change in state.

    COMMENSURABLE: measurable by the same standard.

    INCOMMENSURABLE: having no common standard of measurement.

    Propositions

    —————–

    DECIDABLE: A decision can be made without the addition of external information.

    CALCULABLE: An operation can be performed without the addition of external information.

    DEDUCIBLE: A prediction can be made without the need for external information.

    OPERATIONAL: a conclusion can be reached by a series of existentially possible operations.

    STRICTLY OPERATIONAL : the theory is constructible (i)using existentially possible operations, (ii)does not include use of analogy, (iii)does not require inference (deduction), and (iv) survives all argumentative falsification.

    ORIGINAL INTENTION (CONTEXT / ARBITRARY PRECISION) : in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    TEXTUAL / NARROW/ TRUE (Conservative – normative and legislative) vs ALLEGORICAL / WIDE / MEANING(judicial) interpretation.

    In textual/Narrow/True (conservative) legal interpretation, a law is analogous to an operational recipe and changes to the recipe must be enacted by the legislature. In Allegorical / Wide / Meaning (Progressive) interpretation, the judges can invent law if they can justify the extension of the principle of the law into new areas of application not considered by it’s authors. In practice conservative TRUTH and progressive MEANING place the construction of law into the hands of the judiciary rather than the hands of the legislature and people.

    HOLMES’ LIE

    ——————

    The life of the law may have been experience but that is not license for judges to write law at will – it is an admission of the failure of legal theorists to develop propertarianism, and to separate the resolution of disputes according to the law, from the development of contracts (legislative law) on behalf of the citizenry. The separation of functions of government is necessary for the defense of the people against tyranny. Holmes justified tyranny with his deceptive use of rationalism.

    Propertarianism

    ———————

    See Wiki (or legal dictionary) Textualism (the law is only what is written in the text), Originalism(the text must be interpreted as the authors intended it) and Strict Constructionism ( which is weak textualism and is not practiced ).

    In Propertarianism, have attempted to prevent deceptions by requiring law be written to include its precision – original intention – as a preamble for any prohibition, thus requiring both the obverse and inverse propositions, such that when conditions fail (precision is exceeded) then we must revert to strict operationalism to construct new law.

    In history, judges ‘discovered’ law, and asked the people (the legislature) to approve it. This constraint – the request for legislative approval – extends the period of resolution of disputes. (Which I address elsewhere.) But under Propertarian Property rights, it should be possible to construct new precision from first principles – or not. If not, then it is not a matter of law, but a matter of contract. If it is a matter of contractual exchange, then it is a legislative matter, not one for the courts to decide.

    Purpose

    ———–

    The American constitution was an innovative experiment that nearly achieved law in logical form. However, the problem of contextual precision that we came to understand in the twentieth century was not known at the time.

    The purpose of the law is to (negative or inverse) identify and prohibit involuntary operations, and to (positive or obverse) identify and codify voluntary operations.

    Obverse statements determine precision (conditions), that operational analysis can later demonstrate conditions to have exceeded. Such extensions then require new law (new conditions) constructed as Obverse (positive) statements.

    (Much more … but too much of a headache)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-03 05:03:00 UTC

  • ALL LIFE IS POLITICS – ONCE AGAIN Action(correspondence). Precision(Parsimony).

    ALL LIFE IS POLITICS – ONCE AGAIN

    Action(correspondence). Precision(Parsimony). Meaning(Recursion)

    How do I relate these ideas to one another? Meaning allows us to restructure – to reorganize. So meaning is just theorizing with the operations (ideas) at our disposal.

    Why are the hermeneuticists so fascinated with meaning instead of truth? oh… it’s cheap.

    Wait… so, meaning to the individual isn’t important. Meaning is a political utility.

    So why is meaning….. oh… persuasion for the purpose of cooperation (and less positive ambitions) as well.

    So is it really… yes, so Popper’s advice is directional.. on the conduct of investigation, but not on truth… yes. Ok. So I am full circle again.

    SCIENCE (AND CRITICAL RATIONALISM) ARE SUBSET OF TRUTH TELLING not a superset.

    So just as mathematicians practice platonism out of convenience, scientists practice it out of convenience, philosophers practice it out of convenience.

    But then LAW IS THE HIGHEST LOGIC and testimony the only existential truth, and all else is merely a subset of the truth telling – using analogies. Analogies that lead us to confusion.

    ALL LIFE IS POLITICS

    FUK. THATS IT.

    ( Frank Lovell , Ayelam Valentine Agaliba )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 00:45:00 UTC

  • Against Racism and Multiculturalism

    (sketch)

    [I] always advocate aristocratic egalitarianism and aristocratic tribalism: the responsibility of aristocracy of every tribe to work with the aristocracy of every tribe to construct a moral world. My ambition is the organized suppression of the immoral, and the organized spread of aristocratic egalitarianism wherever moral man is to be found.

    I do not tolerate either racism, or the multiculturalism of the corporate state – but instead, the re-nationalization of liberty and prosperity and the advancement of all moral families, tribes and peoples. Bring truth, trust, rule of law and capital to people, not people to capital and law.

    [F]ailure to compete is a problem of the inadequacy of the self to be corrected, not one of the other to be constrained.

    Punish the wicked.

  • Against Racism and Multiculturalism

    (sketch)

    [I] always advocate aristocratic egalitarianism and aristocratic tribalism: the responsibility of aristocracy of every tribe to work with the aristocracy of every tribe to construct a moral world. My ambition is the organized suppression of the immoral, and the organized spread of aristocratic egalitarianism wherever moral man is to be found.

    I do not tolerate either racism, or the multiculturalism of the corporate state – but instead, the re-nationalization of liberty and prosperity and the advancement of all moral families, tribes and peoples. Bring truth, trust, rule of law and capital to people, not people to capital and law.

    [F]ailure to compete is a problem of the inadequacy of the self to be corrected, not one of the other to be constrained.

    Punish the wicked.

  • AGAINST RACISM (sketch) I advocate aristocratic egalitarianism and aristocratic

    AGAINST RACISM

    (sketch)

    I advocate aristocratic egalitarianism and aristocratic tribalism: the responsibility of aristocracy of every tribe to work with the aristocracy of every tribe to construct a moral world. My ambition is the organized suppression of the immoral, and the organized spread of aristocratic egalitarianism wherever moral man is to be found. I do not tolerate either racism or the multiculturalism of the corporate state – but instead, the re-nationalization of liberty and prosperity and the advancement of all moral families, tribes and peoples. Bring truth, trust, rule of law and capital to people, not people to capital and law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-17 05:01:00 UTC

  • THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES Conservatives rely on Force (t

    THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES

    Conservatives rely on Force (tolerance/punishment)

    Libertarians rely on Trade (reward/deprivation

    Progressives rely upon Gossip (inclusion/ostracization)

    Conservatives are better at constructing normative capital, and;

    Libertarians are better at constructing economic capital, and;

    Progressives are just better at consumption and offspring.

    Conservatives – Long Term production cycles.

    Libertarian – Medium Term production cycles.

    Progressive – Short Term production cycles.

    The Saving of Conservatives

    The Investment Of Libertarians.

    The Consumption of Progressives.

    #libertarian #tcot

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 03:48:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU GUESS? FOUR DIFFERENT POLITIES, FOUR DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. If a group of

    CAN YOU GUESS? FOUR DIFFERENT POLITIES, FOUR DIFFERENT STRATEGIES.

    If a group of people evolved under a sufficient language, so that it was possible to speak operationally, so that one could testify to the truth of a statement, then what would that culture look like? Would that behavior be captured in their genes? If so, then how?

    If a group of people evolved under a deficient language, so that it was impossible to speak sufficiently operationally so that one could testify to the truth of a statement, what would that culture look like? Would that behavior be captured in their genes? If so, how?

    If a group of people evolved specifically to use language to conduct loading, framing, overloading, and deception in order to lie cheat and steal, what would that culture look like? Would that behavior be captured in their genes? How?

    If a group of people evolved specifically to use behavior, not language, to conduct theft by preying upon empathy and altruism, such that they were unable to even distinguish the truth necessary for testimony, and would never give it, even if they did, then what would that culture look like? Would that behavior be captured in their genes? If so, then how?

    Truth, morality, and productivity, represents one end of the evolutionary spectrum. But, does that mean that it is the optimum COMPETITIVE strategy, even if it is the optimum ECONOMIC strategy? Or is it an evolutionary dead end, because it is so weak at competing?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 08:05:00 UTC