Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • (Movement) Yes, there are people who attempted to co-opt me and my work for use

    (Movement)

    Yes, there are people who attempted to co-opt me and my work for use by the degenerate right. Yes I used them as long as it was valuable. Yes it was probably a bad trade in the long term. Yes they are gone. Yes they are still coopting some of my work. No it doesn’t matter. Why? A boys club of the unaccomplished, undesirable, and mentally weak cannot scale. What can scale is practical incentives, and possible solutions. I don’t for a minute think that techies and nerds make much difference other than repeaters. What matters is the men who will fight for fun and profit, and the a sufficient body of the population that will not resist or object to the solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:56:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:51:00 UTC

  • DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM 1 – There exists a natural l

    DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM

    1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.

    2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).

    3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.

    4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).

    5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:50:00 UTC

  • AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND) The problem is (a) delayed entry i

    AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND)

    The problem is (a) delayed entry into the workforce by unnecessary education, excessive educational debt, and immigrant labor filling entry level jobs, (b) immigration of cheap labor favoring upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the working and under classes (c) common property, no fault divorce, alimony and child support guaranteeing elder male poverty and alienation, (d) the replacement of the ‘easy jobs’ with females at the expense of replacement rates of reproduction, and the displacement of males who are less able to self-modify to suit heavily female environments into only the dangerous, physically degenerative, and dirty jobs – or out of the workplace altogether. Business satisfy demand, but government creates demand by immigration, taxation, and family policy. Fools talk about what is good directly (oughts), and adults talk about incentives that produce goods (is’s). Unfortunately due to Dunning Kruger education effects popularized by the island 120 median, the fools do not know they are such.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:40:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUOUS TARIFFS by Pat Buchanan William McKinley, the veteran of Antietam w

    THE VIRTUOUS TARIFFS

    by Pat Buchanan

    William McKinley, the veteran of Antietam who gave his name to the McKinley Tariff, declared four years before being elected president: “Free trade results in our giving our money…our manufactures and our markets to other nations. …It will bring widespread discontent. It will revolutionize our values.”

    Campaigning in 1892, McKinley said, “Open competition between high-paid American labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American industry or lower American wages.”

    Substitute “Asian labor” for “European labor,” and is this not a fair description of what free trade did to U.S. manufacturing these last 25 years? The results have been some $12 trillion in trade deficits, arrested wages for our workers, six million manufacturing jobs lost, 55,000 factories, and plants shut down.

    McKinley’s future vice president Teddy Roosevelt agreed with him: “Thank God I am not a free trader.”

    What did the Protectionists produce?

    From 1869 to 1900, GDP quadrupled. Budget surpluses ran for 27 straight years. The U.S. debt was cut two-thirds to 7 percent of GDP. Commodity prices fell 58 percent. America’s population doubled, but real wages rose 53 percent. Economic growth averaged 4 percent a year.

    And the United States, which began this era with half of Britain’s production, ended it with twice Britain’s production.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:01:00 UTC

  • (Cultural Observations) Breakfast. Young couple. Late twenties maybe. Very into

    (Cultural Observations)

    Breakfast. Young couple. Late twenties maybe. Very into each other. Extremely fit. Working class. Holding each others hands across the table. Very sweet. She has a very thin loose top on with nothing underneath and keeps shaking her shoulders to cause ‘motion’ across the front of her top. This causes him distraction. The result is both of them giggling, and him vacillating between embarrassment and joy. Humans are wonderful. I love my people when they are free to be themselves. And that requires homogeneity. Gentility requires removal of noncommercial competition. Signaling is a cancer of those without virtue.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 09:59:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY? (groups and genetics) 1 – We can evolve

    HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY?

    (groups and genetics)

    1 – We can evolve (a) through normal mutation (b) through selection by intergenerational expression (c) class (quality) sortition, rates of reproduction, and rotation, (d) through selection by group strategy and reorganization resulting in asymmetric rates, , (e) through technological innovation. Although “d” is misunderstood.

    2 – Of these five methods of evolution it appears c,d,e are faster and more influential than a,b. And that in general we are selecting between low dimorphism and increased rates of maturity (male) in hotter climates, higher populations, and greater disease gradients, versus higher dimorphism and decrease rates of maturity (female) in cooler climates, lower populations, and weaker disease gradients.

    3 – The primary axis of difference between the races and sub races, if not tribes, consists in (a) the distribution of dimorphism (balance of male and female traits between the genders), (b) degree of neoteny (balance of rates of maturity or delayed maturity), and (c) success at culling the underclasses (defectives).

    4 – We do not face this reality yet in the postwar era due to (((suppression))) of scientific truths, but some races and sub races are more evolved than others and we can test this because rates of maturity (neoteny), degrees of dimorphism (cognitive structure, and endocrine responses), and IQ distribution (degree of suppression of the underclasses). In this sense races and sub races are vastly unequal.

    5 – But this only means that in large part some groups express different excellences in their middle, upper middle and upper classes, and that some groups have been more successful at culling the lower classes due to climate and available means of production.

    6 – In other words, we can continue to speciate by our various group excellences if and only if homogenous nation states that practice economic eugenics (reproductive limitations).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 09:54:00 UTC

  • “Your life is yours to give, not to take.”—Dan Warren

    —“Your life is yours to give, not to take.”—Dan Warren

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 07:56:00 UTC

  • There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility

    —There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility and measurement: economics. The problem is macro economics seeks to circumvent the law, and the law is ignorant of macro economics.—

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 07:55:00 UTC

  • THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REIT

    THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ

    As far as i know this problem – these problems – arose over two centuries as the federal government – all post-napoleonic governments – increasingly took on the role of “insurer of last resort”.

    In other words, the presumption of the utility risk mitigation provided by fiat money, federal credit, and income taxes was valued over the sovereignty both individual, local and federal of our assets. And the empirical evidence is that this strategy was not only competitively necessary, but resulted in vast increases in our standards of living.

    I am just working through Anna’s writings now and I’ve noticed a few things that I want to explore:

    CONSTRUCTIVIST

    I am having a bit of trouble decomposing the logical (legal) dependencies of Anna’s arguments, but I think they are to natural law (individual sovereignty).

    Sovereignty, which requires reciprocity, which requires truth(testimony), which is itself a duty(cost), and which together leave us no other means of cooperating other than markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, and the production of commons, adjudicated by the common law of tort (property).

    This (markets in everything) is the secret to the west’s success, because both in the ancient and modern world, this system of self government adapts to changes (socks, windfalls) faster than all other known (or possible) systems of government. It makes the optimum use of human incentives. But we must understand it is an *economic* system of government: it forces continuous innovation which constantly reduces prices and increases choices.

    ECONOMIC

    1 – After the civil war, and up through the creation of the federal reserve we converted from a government concerned with sovereignty of property of individuals and states under rule of law (the gold standard system of government) justified by either natural law or common traditional law, to government concerned with the economic condition of individuals and states under discretionary rule (legislative law). Making this change was not without voluminous debate and significant conflict.

    2 – My opinion is that the court lacked sufficient economic knowledge (and under FDR sufficient sovereignty) to reform the law (demand legislation) so that rule of law was preserved AND insurer of last resort functions of the federal or state governments could be created. One of the failings of our common law system is that judges do not specialize outside of family, civil, and criminal as they do in the continental (napoleonic) system. (there are good reasons for and agains). But the court has a myopic view of history as a legal without grasping that our legal systems have poorly adopted to a world consisting almost entirely out of interests in property (distributed possession), rather than possession of property (monopoly possession). I have come to see this as the fundamental problem of adapting our ancient legal systems to the information era (post 1911).

    3 – Fiat currency is functionally nothing more than shares in the federal treasury, which in turn is merely an asset of the federal corporation, which in turn is merely a construct of the federal constitution. The problem is that (as Anna illustrates), we have opened up a host of opportunities for predation upon our individual sovereignty, and our personal property, and even our community property, thereby transforming all assets to the state, and only making use of them by license. In effect we have restored feudalism (serfdom) – just serfdom that is comfortable. And the frightening fact is that comfortable serfdom is in demand, and contrary to historical propaganda was in demand in the past also – as was voluntary slavery. Many people are happy to enter into contemporary serfdom and slavery if they have some protection of law. Yet our system no longer distinguishes between the sovereign, the serf, and the slave – thereby ignoring the differences in risk we wish (or can) bear, because of our abilities, our skills, our assets, our families, and our associations. We are taxed by income but not by risk. We are governed by serfdom not by sovereignty. And this is because the law has not kept pace with the economic structure of polities. And to a large degree I blame the Judicial community for failing to grasp the relationship between the demands upon law, and the economic “technology” that we live under.

    CLOSING

    The mistake I see in Anna’s writings is the same mistake I see in ‘gold bugs’ or other people that want to return to hard money. Hard money is a terrible limitation upon the people for no reason – resulting in hard and fast shocks that cannot be insured against (the jury is in on cyclicality of corrections but it is hard to take the position of allowing shorter devastating depressions rather than longer softer recessions) That said, we no longer make use of money as other than debt instruments (all money is merely a token without any backing other than fiat demand for it).

    The question isn’t return to gold standard, or return to fully private property (which merely weakens us from producing the higher returns of the commons). The question is how to restore sovereignty and markets in everything by rule of law given that we have a new monetary technology available to us that is no longer physical – how can we restore the state to its only necessarily useful function: as the insurer of last resort both economic(positive) and judicial (negative).

    And we must recognize that the enlightenment experiment with equality has been a failure and that the upper classes will always seek rents, the financial classes (distributors of liquidity) are now entirely unnecessary (really), and are by their very existence parasitic, and the underclasses, grown more numerous while the middle shrinks – have only serfdom as their desired order.

    There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility and measurement economics. The problem is macro economics seeks to circumvent the law, and the law is ignorant of macro economics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 07:50:00 UTC