Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MONARCHY AND RULE OF LAW Monarchy requires rule of law. It’s impossible to hold

    MONARCHY AND RULE OF LAW

    Monarchy requires rule of law.

    It’s impossible to hold an absolute monarchy.

    It’s impossible to hold a dictatorship under rule of law.

    An absolute monarchy is a contradiction in terms.

    European Monarchy is, as far as I know, the correct label for common law monarchies of our ancient past.

    Christian Monarchy is, as far as I know, the correct label for medieval monarchies, since monarchies did not exist as we know them prior to the church’s crowning of ‘legitimate’ kings of europe.

    Constitutional Monarchies are perhaps where we went wrong, since it make the judge of last resort (monarch) subservient to a legislature(politics), rather than to the rule of natural law (the church), or to the rule of common law (judges).

    Stated in these terms which emphasize the negative (judging) it is more obvious than when stated in the positive (legislation or command).

    A ruler can only judge. A market can only choose. Anyone can envison.

    By envisioning, choosing my market, and judging (limiting) by monarch we funnel ideas through a series of challenges that ensure that only those with the most merit survive.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:15:00 UTC

  • MIXED AND UNMIXED ECONOMIES? 0) lets look at these terms: COMMUNISM: unorganized

    MIXED AND UNMIXED ECONOMIES?

    0) lets look at these terms:

    COMMUNISM: unorganized equalitarian production of private and commons. Collective ownership of the means of production.

    (PARASITISM UPON THE INDIVIDUAL)

    SOCIALISM: state (involuntary) organization of production. State ownerhship of the means of production. state ownership of the proceeds of production. state distribution of the proceeds of production to common or private ends.

    (INVOLUNTARY COMMONS)

    SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: state organization of some part of production. State ownership of the MEANS of production, state ownership of the PROCEEDS of production. Individual retains COMMISSION on his production for his private consumption, the remainder is held by the state for the production of commons.

    (COMPETITION FOR PRIVATE AND COMMONS)

    CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: individual ownership of the means of production, individual ownership of the proceeds of production. The voluntary organization of production. individuals contribute to the production of commons by majority assent.

    (VOLUNTARY COMMONS)

    CAPITALISM (market anarchism). Individual ownership of the means of production, individual ownership of the proceeds of production, the voluntary organization of production, and the private construction of common goods.

    (PARASITISM UPON THE COMMONS)

    1) EXTREMES FAIL

    Neither socialism nor capitalism is possible. Hence neither exists.

    2) MONOPOLIES FAIL:

    Instead we develop mixed economies.

    Social democracy (mixed economies) are the constant throughout history. At present the mainstream seeks to identify the maximum taxation possible without disincentivizing production. This appears to be dependent upon the homogeneity of the population.

    3) MIXED WORK, BUT MORE MIXING IS BETTER

    We appear to need a different economic model for each CLASS.

    … Lets look at the hierarchy of labor:

    – barbarian (outside the system – person is candidate or enemy)

    – prisoner (owner bears risk but person is disposable)

    – slave/soldiery (owner bears risk – person is tradable/releasable)

    – serf (split cost of risk) (supported by own production)

    – employee (full cost of risk) (supported by production returns)

    – professional (burgher) (supported by trade returns)

    – capitalist (landowner) (supported by management returns)

    – statist (aristocracy) (supported by proceeds of taxation)

    – warriors (aristocracy) (supported by proceeds of conquest)

    So we do not have ENOUGH of a mixed economy.

    We have no slavery, too small a military, no regiments, too small a disaster releif organization, no commons- maintenance organizations, too few syndicates and unions, and no monasteries or nunneries, and the academy functions as the only monastery. Yet we have a bloated financial sector that is clearly parasitic.

    Why? Because we allowed collective bargaining, and parasitic private and public contracts to award pensions we could not afford at our rates of inflation.

    We have created the worst possible mix of large homes and small expensive urban apartments, rather than large family apartments in large numbers in urban areas.

    We have created an empire with constant political conflict in order to gain mobility, rather than a collection of small homogenous states with constant political satisfaction of local demands, at the expense of mobility. However, that mobility is the reason for the decline of social order and the fmaily and care for the commons, and our culture itself.

    Economists are even WORSE idiots than theologians.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:03:00 UTC

  • ( Brother-in-law and I talking about how wiring diagrams (blueprints) and progra

    ( Brother-in-law and I talking about how wiring diagrams (blueprints) and programming software and writing laws all require us to follow the same processes. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 08:09:00 UTC

  • (depends on your definition of philosophy. we don’t have a word in the west for

    (depends on your definition of philosophy. we don’t have a word in the west for ‘thinker’ that separates Reason from Mysticism the same way that Scientist is separated from Philosopher. But as far as I know there is only one family of philosophers: European and its reaction by Indo-Europeans, Greek, and it’s reaction by Confucius, and Anglo and the reaction by all after the enlightenment. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 07:34:00 UTC

  • Find the best 10 libertarians, best 10 conservatives, best 10 progressives, and

    Find the best 10 libertarians, best 10 conservatives, best 10 progressives, and best 10 propertarians. Bring all together for a debate.

    We would absolutely crush them all.

    The difference between advocates and prosecutors.

    The difference between excuse makers and truth tellers.

    The difference between positiva and negativa.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 07:27:00 UTC

  • “All of civilization in every society consists of nothing but insurance. Sociali

    —“All of civilization in every society consists of nothing but insurance. Socialism and welfare statism take profits from risk and investment in the future and use it in the present. The longer it goes on the more likely society collapses from overconsumption and malinvestment, and the less likely we are to make real progress or to innovate and evolve and expand (including, now, beyond Earth.)”—Delian Valeriani

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 23:13:00 UTC

  • Occidente requiere de liderazgo masculino – Propertarianism A Propertarian post

    Occidente requiere de liderazgo masculino – Propertarianism

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/01/03/occidente-requiere-de-liderazgo-masculino/

    A Propertarian post in Spanish, original content

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 22:31:00 UTC

  • MORE “TESTIMONIALISM FIRST” By Joel Davis —“It seems like to Curt, he develope

    MORE “TESTIMONIALISM FIRST”

    By Joel Davis

    —“It seems like to Curt, he developed Testimonialism as a means to making his vision of society work. So he teaches his vision of society and then uses Testimonialism as his defense.

    However what seemed to attract Bill (and myself) to Curt’s ideas was the fact that he has developed the most comprehensive bullshit identification system we have come across. The vision of society Curt has was a logical extension of applying it and Propertarianism gives us so much but it’s just another “-ism” without Testimonialism.

    So there’s two strategies. Use Propertarianism as the carrot we dangle to attract people to Testimonialism, or use Testimonialism as a carrot we dangle to attract people to THE TRUTH.

    I personally found the second method the most potent.

    I think there is also a third strategy that is even more capable of attracting people to the philosophy and to extend the metaphor that would be the carrot of aesthetics.

    The truth does not seem something we find ourselves motivated towards in and of itself. The truth seems more like a means to informing and therefore empowering our pursuit of willed consequences.

    These consequences we want seem to correspond to our notion of aesthetics. All the things I want I am enamored by.

    The only reason I seem to give a shit about the truth and testimonialism is because I see their utility.

    Inspiring this realisation in others is surely the awakening of the soverign in man? And that’s what you’re (we’re) trying to do right?”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 22:16:00 UTC

  • “WHERE DO I START?” —“Curt, I’ve been working on your reading list, but there

    “WHERE DO I START?”

    —“Curt, I’ve been working on your reading list, but there doesn’t seem to be any specific order to the thing, it’s topic specific. Is that on purpose? Why not have some foundational readings, which then branch out towards other topics?”— Ankit Patel

    The foundational readings are in the first section. But if you want me to give you the MOST IMPORTANT that i consider you need today it would be:

    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind

    Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow

    Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    Francis Fukuyama: The Origins of Political Order.

    Niall Ferguson:. Civilization: The West and the Rest.

    Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

    Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.

    Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty

    I wrote this list as I went along, cataloguing those works that I’d read and not dismissed. But where i started with the study of western civilization i ended up in law.

    But the truth is, (and I now this sounds like ego-bullshit) you’re actually not going to find the synthesis of so many fields that I provide anywhere else by anyone. It’s just almost impossible to cover every field I have at the depth I have and I don’t think it was possible before the 21st century to do so.

    So at present my blog (the record of my writing) with all its repetition is actually more helpful than the reading list.

    It’s one of the reasons i’m so hard to understand. I’m pulling from all these fields at once to show that speaking the truth is possible and that we CAN complete the scientific method and turn it into LAW : Natural Law.

    I mean, in the end that’s all my work reduces to: we know the name of TRUTH now, and we can put it in law, where we could not put it into law before. And because of that we can now protect the market for information and the informational commons the same way that we protect the market for goods, the market for services, and the market for polities.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 20:20:00 UTC

  • Rational != Rationalism. SERIES: REASON Imaginable > Reasonable > Rational > Rat

    Rational != Rationalism.

    SERIES: REASON

    Imaginable > Reasonable > Rational > Rationalism > Logical > Mathematical > Identitarian: the sequence of testing methods of internal consistency.

    SERIES: SCIENCE

    While they say it poorly, science makes use of the tests of:

    > internal consistency (logical)

    > external consistency (empirical repeatability)

    > existential consistency (operational definitions)

    > scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)(falsification)

    Social science should add:

    > reciprocal consistency (moral)

    So just as we can say that there exists a discipline called mathematics in which we test axiomatic systems consisting of the dimensions {identity(naming), number(arith.), ratio(math), distance(space), and movement (calculus)}, and just as there is a means by which we test rational systems{(see above)}, we can also say that there exists a discipline called truth, which we call ‘science’ that tests existential rather than axiomatic dimensions{(see above)}.

    So science exists as the largest test of reality (causal relations).

    Rationalism exists as a test only of internal verbal consistency (semantic relations).

    Logic exists as a test of internal consistency (set relations).

    And mathematics exists only as a test of relational consistency (constant relations).

    So yes, science exists just as mathematics, logic, and rationalism do.

    And science is to all other disciplines as calculus is to arithmetic: an increase in the dimensions tested by the method.

    TRUTH

    The truth of a proposition is permanently uncertain in science, although, while knowable, the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, meaning the base entities, operations and limits of the universe. We can test the operations of humans by subjective sympathy – which is where mises went wrong. So we can test even if we cannot yet quantify, the limits of human thought instrumentally. We can test social science under the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities). So we can test the physical, personal, and social sciences using the SERIES I listed above.

    Truth = a statement that survives.

    Testimony = testimony that survives.

    Only people can testify that they speak truthfully.

    They cannot know they speak the truth – in the sense of most parsimonious description possible – they can only know that they have performed due diligence against the series above (science), and that their utterance has survived those tests.

    SPECIFICS

    —“The truth value here is not placed on a conclusion, but on a method.”—

    The warranty against falsehood is placed upon survival of tests of due diligence. To make the statement ‘truth value’ is a categorical error similar to applying probability to asymmetric distributions (fat tails). you cannot calculate a probability from an unknown scope. Just as you a bell curve is always false, a probability is alway false, and a truth statement is always false. We can know we speak truthfully but we cannot know we speak the truth, nor can we quantify truth.

    BLAME

    we evolved reason from the common law, aristotelian reason from advances in the common law, and empiricism from advances in the common law. Because the law involved ‘skin in the game’ between aristocratic warriors and their staff, servants, and protectorate, it could not so easily be subverted by excuse making as could religious and philosophical reasoning.

    Moral sentiments evolved out of the needs of cooperation, and so did moral rules. Law evolved to codify moral rules. If one adhered to religious, moral, or legal rules, one can be forgiven for error. This is the source of JUSTIFICATIONARY reasoning.

    But that reasoning is precisely what delayed the development of science, which does not depend upon prior positive assertions, but the discovery of truth propositions by trial and error, by a relentless evolutionary increase in precision.

    The error you are making in your arguments is called ‘justificationism’. It went out with the end of the 19th century.

    There is another error you are making that went out with the 19th century, and that is that I suspect you confuse proof (possibility) with truth (causality). A proof != Truth. We use the term ‘true’ allegorically, and that is all

    There is yet another error you make and that is to resort to internal consistency instead of expanding into empiricism and then falling back to internal consistency only after you have failed to test the higher standard. This is actually a form of deception commonly employed – although in your case I suspect its merely ignorance and error.

    —“Yes, but then there can not be really a definition of the Outcome Ethics, because the knowledge how to bring the mentioned outcomes would have to be a part of the definition.”—

    But that’s not really true, now is it.

    If we possess the knowledge to test outcomes, then we may make use of outcome ethics.

    If we do not we may resort to rule ethics.

    If we do not have rules we may resort to virtue ethics.

    If we do not have a virtue ethic we can resort to moral introspection.

    Morality is serves as a form of law under which we do not hold one another accountable for our errors if we act according to those rules.

    We do not hold children, the young, adults, and non specialists for the ethics required of those with specialized knowledge.

    Conversely we DO hold accountable those with specialized knowledge in areas of specialized knowledge.

    So one of the tests of honesty (truthfulness) is whether one uses both the situational information available to him, and the ethical systems available to him, given his knowledge of a particular discipline.

    Conversely we treat as dishonest those who use lower standards of ethics, lower methods of reasoning, that make use of less information, as a means of justifying their arguments rather than eliminating the risk to others by testing at the limits of one’s knowledge.

    Furthermore, this is why the left won: we held to the lie that men merely err. The left succeeded by the construction of convincing lies.

    Rothbard certainly constructed as convincing a set of lies as did marx and the neocons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 20:03:00 UTC