Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Hmm

    Hmm…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 13:05:00 UTC

  • “Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx,

    —“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart

    (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone.

    The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again.

    But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication.

    Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons.

    Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 10:09:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians ge

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS.

    (from elsewhere)

    Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.

    If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.

    The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.

    To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.

    Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.

    This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).

    (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)

    Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.

    The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.

    As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.

    Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.

    There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 07:04:00 UTC

  • YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze,

    https://t.co/0Qp8zizYpWSUPERIOR YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST

    All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel ages is that whites were superior to all other races but that whites on the eurasian plain possessed certain geographic advantages that allowed them to avoid developing monolithic civilizations in order to defend against competitors from multiple directions so endemic to warmer climates.

    The general argument is that X civilization did something or other first. And this will always be true of the irrigated river valley civilizations, because of the caloric savings provided by those river valleys.

    But as a consequence whites never developed the ‘bads’ that came with monolithic social and political orders, or intellectual orders, or religious orders. So, while whites were individually wealthier, they were institutionally poorer. And as a consequence, whites preserved a professional warrior caste and dependence upon a militia.

    So because of this constant competition in all walks of life, combined with the ‘testimonial’ epistemology necessary in militia and warrior armies, whites advanced FASTER than the rest in each era.

    In other words, good farm land but lack of concentration of river floods, left the west with institutional disadvantages and lack of concentration of wealth, and preserved competition between individuals, families, tribes, nations, and later states.

    The consequence of preserving military epistemology (testimony: objective truth telling) across the land holding polity, and the competing institutions is *rapidity*.

    Whites calculate change more comfortably and faster than all other social orders, and this is even evident in our very precise (high syntax, low context) languages.

    And it is this organized chaos we call ‘markets in every aspect of life’ that produces such stressful uncertainty in western civilization, and we export that stress to all other civilizations, as we drag them against their will out of ignorance, superstition, stagnation, poverty, violence, tyranny and disease.

    So yes. Except for that period around 1000 between the plagues of Justinian and the black plague (Both brought from Asia), whites have been demonstrably superior. Not first. But always best.

    Are whites inferior?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 21:20:00 UTC

  • VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I

    https://www.quora.com/Computational-Linguistics-What-distinguishes-subjective-held-in-the-mind-from-objective-testable/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=aee1b67cSUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY

    I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can.

    **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience.

    Subjectively experienced:

    – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable)

    – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable)

    – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable)

    – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable)

    – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable)

    – no, that’s not believable. (reportable).

    **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical.

    Objectively experienced:

    – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions)

    – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions)

    – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions)

    – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions)

    – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions)

    – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions).

    **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable:

    – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number.

    – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions.

    – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary).

    **SCIENCE AND THE WEST**

    The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be.

    The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good.

    This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it.

    What we intuit is often not a good thing.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 19:50:00 UTC

  • MANY PEOPLE INTUIT THIS PROBLEM IN EXTANT THOUGHT… LET ME DEFINE AND SOLVE IT

    MANY PEOPLE INTUIT THIS PROBLEM IN EXTANT THOUGHT… LET ME DEFINE AND SOLVE IT FOR YOU

    —“Hi Curt Doolittle. Can you tell me which types of philosophy I have used in my post? Thank you”— Angela Michelle Joy Stahlfest-Moller

    Hmm…. This may seem critical at first but hopefully it will provide you with insight into the intuition you feel – that you are not alone, but that the problem cannot be solved the way you suggest. And that the solution is in progress already.

    So here we go:

    You make use of reason.

    (Not rationalism, not empiricism, not operationalism.)

    You make inappropriate use of the verb to-be (“is, are, was, were).

    Your method of decidability is called ‘intuitionism’.

    Your terminology and grammar and method of decidability are ‘imprecise’, which prohibits rational, empirical, and operational testing.

    Because you rely upon intuitionism and untestable language,

    your conclusions do not follow from your premises with the degree of certainty you intuit.

    But this is all consistent in furtherance of your objective.

    You are doing what many people attempt to do, which is to create consistency by reconciling the difference between the objective and subjective experiences.

    The most extreme example of this technique is Heidegger who attempted to conflate experience with existence. Some people find his attempt interesting, and others somewhere between nonsense and dishonesty.

    There are a number of current ‘pseudoscientific’ arguments that have attempted to solve the problem of velocity and ratio.

    You make use of scientific terminology and argument and criticize its terminology without drawing the conclusion that the scientific method, concepts, and terms evolved for the sole purpose of overcoming the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception endemic to our intuitions.

    But your method of doing so is to attempt to suggest there may exist some form of verbal legitimacy to intuitionistic reasoning rather than appreciating the extraordinary difficulty the western world has born in order to create a methods, concepts, language and grammar that compensate for the failings of our intuitions, whether biological limitations, cognitive biases, normative biases, and institutional biases.

    While it is possible to speak in subjective language that we can intuitively test, doing so is extremely burdensome. For example, almost all mathematical terms refer to numbers, but other than the natural numbers, actually functions. But to change all of mathematics is burdensome. In every field we make use of ‘convenient’ language.

    The advocates of the extreme application of your idea, are the creators of postmodern, politically correct, feminist, philosophies that use the social construction of reality. This form of language is a rebellion against 19th century science of Darwin, Spencer, Menger, and Nietzsche, and it’s ‘dehumanizing’ statements about man in relation to nature, just as Rousseau, Kant, and Medelssohn were rebellions against the British (and Italian) scientific enlightenment.

    The solution to the problem you wish to solve, is FIRST to preserve the objective scientific language, but SECOND to require operational and objectively testable definitions. This is what the physical sciences have attempted to do but they are burdened by technical language; which, THIRD, constructs a competition between the objective and the subjective frameworks that both provides intuitionistic sensibility and subjective testing, but limits the errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – problems that our intuitions, and therefore all humans, so frequently demonstrate.

    My belief is that this transition is happening in our language and that sometime in the next century or so that transition will be complete.

    Western civilization is built on competition between deflationary specializations, and this is another example of it – even in our language.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 18:59:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 13:59:00 UTC

  • OATH (n.) Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in wit

    OATH (n.)

    Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise,” from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs “oath”), from PIE *oi-to- “an oath” (source also of Old Irish oeth “oath”). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 11:15:00 UTC

  • SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the anc

    SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. Recorded in Latin and in what Dutch linguists describe as one of the earliest known records of Old Dutch. it would remain the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, influencing future European legal systems.

    Salic law provided written codification of both civil law, such as the statutes governing inheritance, and criminal law, such as the punishment for murder. It has had a formative influence on the tradition of statute law that has extended to modern times in Central Europe, especially in the German states, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, Austria-Hungary, Romania, and the Balkans.

    The best known tenet of the old law is the principle of exclusion of women from inheritance of thrones, fiefs and other property. The Salic laws were arbitrated by a committee appointed and empowered by the King of the Franks. Dozens of manuscripts dating from the 6th to 8th centuries and three emendations as late as the 9th century have survived.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 11:13:00 UTC

  • COMMON LAW (n.) mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodi

    COMMON LAW (n.)

    mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 11:09:00 UTC