Source: Facebook

  • (cultural humor) —“If we could convince the Chinese that Jihadi testicles were

    (cultural humor)

    —“If we could convince the Chinese that Jihadi testicles were an aphrodisiac islam would be extinct in a generation.”—

    Great way to save endangered species.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 19:21:00 UTC

  • BASICS FOR NEWBIES

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/PROPERTARIANISM’S BASICS FOR NEWBIES.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 18:19:00 UTC

  • A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW (draft. without markets doesn’t tie it all togethe

    A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW

    (draft. without markets doesn’t tie it all together)

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/19/what-does-natural-law-mean/

    A DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/01/12/definitionnatural-law/

    MORE ON NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/29/natural-law/

    RETURNS ON COOPERATION: WHY WE NEED NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/29/the-first-principles-of-propertarian-ethics/

    A COMPLETE SCIENCE: TRUTH , THE LAW OF INFORMATION, THE NATURAL LAW OF COOPERATION, AND THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE.

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/

    DIAGRAM OF THE COMPLETE SCIENCES

    https://propertarianism.com/category/attributes/law/

    SCIENCE (TESTIMONY) IS A DISCIPLINE WITHIN NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/11/17/no-science-is-a-moral-discipline-within-natural-law-the-means-by-which-we-warrant-the-truthfulness-of-our-statements/

    THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/natural-law-and-the-grammar-of-operational-language/

    GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, DATATYPES, and OPERATIONS

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/propertarianism-datatypes-operations-grammar-syntax/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 16:29:00 UTC

  • Despite a bad month in general of slow progress, made great leaps on Oversing to

    Despite a bad month in general of slow progress, made great leaps on Oversing today. But this new technology stack from Facebook is a little too much ‘close your eyes curt and feel the force’ and not enough ‘oh, this makes sense, i get it’. Someone needed to work on 3dGame engines before they designed all this silly chaos back behind the scenes. But that said, its so fast it’s scary.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 15:00:00 UTC

  • I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained b

    I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained by the Academy (State Church) in the hatred of western civilization (Critical Theory), who are the immoral in word,deed and conspiracy of common folly.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:57:00 UTC

  • YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’. (meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh

    YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’.

    (meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh the irony)

    Necessary definitions are what we call ‘truth’ statements. It is what it is. They are what they are. And yes I do need to do it. It’s my job: Sanitizing the informational commons. And exposing those who make excuses for people who conflate personal experiential emotions in the ignorance of possibility, cost, and consequence, possibility with aggregate possibility, cost, and consequence in order to promote and conduct thefts via the violence of government is one of the most moral services a man can provide to his people.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:54:00 UTC

  • It’s OK to be ignorant (or stupid) but it is not OK to assume your level of comp

    It’s OK to be ignorant (or stupid) but it is not OK to assume your level of comprehension is a measure of anything but your own ignorance. OK? It only SOUNDS like ‘babble’ or ‘gibberish’ to you. You want others to pay the cost of educating you? That’s why you levy criticism. To use shaming in order to force others to educate you rather than demonstrating your ignorance and asking to be educated.

    I understand inadequacy. You just don’t realize that you’re demonstrating it – and fooling no one.

    If you don’t understand, then ask. If you’re too much of a poser to ask, or too stupid to understand, those are issues for you to deal with. Me, I’m patient as hell, and gregarious with the public – it’s my job. But there is a limit to the costs I am willing to bear on behalf of posers and idiots.

    😉

    I know, the supply of posers and idiots is much higher than the supply of moral, honest people, with capable intelligence. But this sort of catharsis helps me relieve my frustration of the reality of that asymmetry.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:42:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENS

    HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    —“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar

    It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.

    In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:

    “Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”

    Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.

    The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).

    We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).

    In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).

    But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?

    The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.

    How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?

    Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.

    Rule is something else altogether.

    Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.

    Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.

    CLOSING

    So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.

    I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.

    Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC

  • (humor)(takedown) Typical product of the Australian education system, with a deg

    (humor)(takedown)

    Typical product of the Australian education system, with a degree in philosophy (fictionalism) and politics (fictionalism), and like a good secular christian pursuing proper left-interests and debating them with feminine passion

    —-

    You should recognize that there are higher goals to fight for than those you do: namely those things that preserve your ability to think, act and feel as you do. Simple passions are for women.

    I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional, nor philosophy as literature rather than science.

    Perhaps had you studied common law, mathematics, physics, economics, war, and history, rather than moral fictionalism – secular religion – you might speak and argue both scientifically and with a full accounting rather than cherrypicking those intuitionistic measures that satisfy the priors of your self selected fictionalism.

    That is a masculine adult scientific criticism of your feminine , adolescent, sophomoric screed.

    Or more colloquially, you argue like a schoolgirl.

    I am too kind to suggest the host of reasons for your condition, but I am sure that besides the primary cultural export of Australians (like Canadians) being self aggrandizing virtue signaling, and perhaps some lack of paternal or martial influence, or perhaps genetics, that you have chosen the work of women for your cause. Usually a sign of conspicuous consumption by those lacking masculine attributes.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 09:55:00 UTC

  • compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it

    compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it’s intellectual laziness, status seeking, and virtue signaling.

    Regarding regulation. Unless you grasp the scale of the cost of compliance vs the returns on that compliance you are again making judgement out of intellectual laziness, and pseudo-morality rather than the science. While it may be one thing to punish the best dog owners whose dogs are fully trained because of those whose dogs require leashes, it is quite another to impose vast costs and the highest taxes on business and industry. While Foreign Affairs has traditionally been fairly conservative, the article you reference cherrypicks the regulatory nightmare of the EU where business is not growing, vs the remainder of the world where growth is continuing, regulation is non existent and corruption is rife.

    Why is it that ignorant people feel their opinions are anything but the fantastic impulses of the uneducated, uninformed, and unskillled implanted in them by critical theory and the ignorance of organizations and politiies at large scales?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 05:26:00 UTC