Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • GROUP PRODUCTIVE OR PARASITIC STRATEGIES. Each group practices some strategy fro

    GROUP PRODUCTIVE OR PARASITIC STRATEGIES.

    Each group practices some strategy from perfect cooperation (natural law) to perfect predation (conquest)

    THIS GENERAL ORDER:

    (which makes people pissed but its simply demonstrably true)

    The West(utopian cooperation),

    The Hindus(benevolent cooperation),

    The Chinese(corporeal cooperation),

    The Gypsies(parasitism on property and commons of others),

    Jews(parasitism on the commons, and informational commons of others),

    The Muslims (parasitism on property, commons, and informational commons of others).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:33:00 UTC

  • THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW 1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological inst

    THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW

    1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological instinct for reciprocity (positive-purchase of options on future cooperation, neutral-exchange of cooperation, and negative-retaliatory at high expense, for violation of reciprocity.) This is ‘objective morality: natural law.

    2) Normative Institutions -> man evolves normative institutions that we call ‘morals’. These morals vary from group to group because each group constructs various ‘contracts’ (habits) that we call norms, on top of objective morality. These habits attempt to construct a market of sorts suitable for the solution of certain cultural, demographic, and geographic problems. (marriage and inheritance habits being the easiest examples to study). Property rights evolved in concert with (a) division of labor and development of tools, built capital and territorial property, (b) inheritance of those assets, and (c) tribal, clan, village, extended family, family, and absolute nuclear family structures. ( Private property increases with class (independence).)

    3) Formal Institutions -> the formal standardization (think of property rights registered in law as a standardization of weights and measures that facilitate the ‘fit’ of cooperation and the means of dispute resolution upon the failure of cooperation.

    4) Logical Decidability -> the method of commensurability by reduction to natural law, when formal law fails, or normative morality fails, because of differences in local contractual assumptions. In other words, natural law provides a means of commensurability across normative and formal institutional contracts, just as the natural common law provides a standard of decidability between private contracts.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:15:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT. (a) Ope

    OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT.

    (a) Operationalism is the next step in analytic philosophy.

    (b) Our failure to solve the question of operationalism in the early 20th is the reason that we were subject to social and economic pseudoscience during the 20th and 21st.

    (c) most questions of analytic philosophy, including the liars paradox are solved by operationalism. Most questions of philosophy evaporate as nothing more than word games. All philosophical paradoxes evaporate.

    (d) Consider this sequence: identity(category), sets(logic), constant-relations(math), existence(operations), moral(reciprocal), models/simulations(equilibria).

    (f) Consider that the objective of epistemology is not to develop theories (narratives for discovering candidates) but to catalog existentially possible operations (recipes for constructing possibilities) at all scales of existence. I believe this is the conceptual change we are currently transitioning to.

    (e) You can learn to write operationally using E-Prime. You can research E-Prime online. I’ve written extensively on this question if you search my website.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 08:08:00 UTC

  • THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY – Aristocratic Sovereignty demonstrable in fact.

    THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY

    – Aristocratic Sovereignty demonstrable in fact. (create order)

    – Bourgeoise Liberty by permission for profit. (organize)

    – Craftsman Freedom by permission when profitable. (transform)

    – Dependent Subsidy for virtue signals when possible. (reproduce)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 07:52:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC SOVEREIGNTY IN FACT, AND BOURGEOISE

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC SOVEREIGNTY IN FACT, AND BOURGEOISE LIBERTY BY PERMISSION?

    (good argument against parasitic rothbardians, and libertarians who have not yet ‘come over’.)

    All talk of rights is the equivalent of all talk of god’s demands. Nonsense. Rights are created as the end result – the effect. What are they the result of?

    (a) Sovereignty is testably true or false, and is a condition created by nothing other than the capacity to oppose impositions against one’s possessions by retaliation with violence. Sovereign men = legislatures of one.

    (b) A condition of liberty is obtained by permission of those who are sovereign. And the history of liberty is the history of begging the sovereign for a limited imitation of sovereignty that we call liberty. Liberty is granted by sovereign men to unsovereign men so that they may be taxed for profit.

    (d) among sovereign men, and those dependents who one grants liberty, the only means of preserving sovereignty and liberty is to resolve disputes by natural, judge discovered, common law of no-imposition: non-provocation of retaliation, against property-in-toto: the investments of the other.

    (e) The sovereign minority creates liberty for the dependent minority who holds liberty by permission, in exchange for producing commissions earned by the sovereign that those who possess liberty do not pay.

    (f) There exist moral fees and immoral fees. But if the fees are moral (productive ends) then *all moral taxes are moral* so to speak.

    (g) we are not equal, unless we are equal in sovereignty. We are only equal in sovereignty in a militia of reciprocally insured men.

    (h) and reciprocally insured men have by their action created a commons which we call property rights and the court of common law: a right constitutes an insurance claim upon the promise of reciprocity between and enforced by sovereign men.

    THEREFORE

    1) the scope of ones possessions and interests one claims reciprocal insurance of in order not to retaliate, break the peace and harm the market, and produce retaliation spirals, is limited only by the range of investments sovereign men make in the market that they have constructed by the use of violence to prohibit parasitism and create increases in trade from which they profit.

    2) The entire libertine corpus consists of whining and begging to obtain the benefits of a market created by others, while escaping the costs. in other words libertarianism is an elaborate excuse to free ride upon the commons just as socialism is an elaborate excuse to free ride on private production. just another fraud in obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 07:38:00 UTC

  • FOREIGN POLICY: POSTWAR ASSUMPTIONS NOW FALSE 1) FALSE: The United States enjoys

    FOREIGN POLICY: POSTWAR ASSUMPTIONS NOW FALSE

    1) FALSE: The United States enjoys and will continue to enjoy uncontested military primacy, not just globally, but in all key strategic theaters.

    2) FALSE: U.S. allies are the richest, most capable countries in the world.

    3) FALSe: A richer and more globally integrated China will also be a freer and more peaceful China.

    4) FALSE: Great-power war is obsolete.

    5) FALSE: The advance of democracy is unstoppable and irreversible.

    6) FALSE: Globalization is inexorable.

    7) FALSE: Technological innovation will lead to greater human flourishing and freedom, and will disproportionately favour the United States.

    In other words CONSERVATIVES WERE RIGHT.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 06:54:00 UTC

  • NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD Ideological malinvestment is extremely dif

    NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD

    Ideological malinvestment is extremely difficult to overcome – it requires rebuilding your conceptual portfolio.

    It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rather than scientific evidence.

    And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preservation of the malinvestment.

    This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – status preservation of malinvestment.

    I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and Socrates had worse. But True=True.

    Sovereignty exists or not, Liberty is obtained by permission, freedom out of utility, subsidy out of signaling.

    Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto by the promise of violence.

    And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – markets in everything.

    And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discovered,common law of non-imposition.

    …non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive to retaliate.

    Tucker is a good person and I have affection for him. Not everyone is ready. They must lose hope in error first.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 20:51:00 UTC

  • “These boomer critics don’t even know what the alt right aesthetics are. Not tha

    —“These boomer critics don’t even know what the alt right aesthetics are. Not that I mind their confusion lasting up until the very moment they become the subjects of some pyrotechnic performance art.”— Carlos Clark

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 19:42:00 UTC

  • THE PROPERTARIAN ‘BRAND’ a) people try to use ‘propertarian’ to add ‘cache’ to t

    THE PROPERTARIAN ‘BRAND’

    a) people try to use ‘propertarian’ to add ‘cache’ to the fact that they’re just rothbardian libertarians, and we’ve pretty much ended rothbardian libertarianism as a viable strategy.

    (b) Propertarianism provides a complete philosophical system and a formal logic. I chose ‘propertarian’ because there were very, very, few extant uses of the term, and because I wanted to capture the evolution from Locke->Rothbard->Hoppe to my self. So technically speaking if you reduce all social science to statements of property then categorically you could say your a follower of the propertarian. That said, there is a very great difference between locke, rothbard, hoppe, and myself (property in toto) and the claims we make.

    So Unless a person can articulate which of those scopes of property he is referring to and why I would tend to describe him as saying the equivalent of ‘libertarian or anarcho capitalist’ or ‘undecided libertarian’.

    We tend to use the terms ‘Aristocratic Egalitarian’, Propertarian, or Natural law. And we certainly expect people to try to usurp the term just as liberals stole liberal, and rothbard stole libertarian we expect people to try to steal propertarian. Its ok. it is what it is.

    I suppose the fact that I own most of the permutations of the domains propertarian*.* is enough of a testimony. But it’s not like I care. all advertising is good advertising.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 19:28:00 UTC

  • NO, THE USA HAD NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, BUT THE OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY DI

    NO, THE USA HAD NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, BUT THE OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY DID.

    —“Ukraine is corrupt but that is not the fault of Russia. Its Western puppet government is no better than Yanukovich’s. If anything, it is worse.”—-

    Yeah?

    Do you mean that the soviet system was not perpetuated by russian funding of ‘favorable tyrants’? Even after Putin said “We paid for them, we thought we had bought them.” But was totally off guard when the revolution happened? And so Putin panicked?

    Do you mean, that when the oligarchs realized that Yanukovich was going to hand over the country to Russia, after Yanukovich ditched the EU deal, that they paid for the revolution, and put one of their own in power? After Russia has paid Yanukovich to bribe his way to re-election (I was offered 200uah to vote for him and I couldn’t even vote), and paid him to unfund and dismantle the military so that it would be easy for them to seize the country?

    The oligarch’s clock is ticking and membership in the EU will force them out, but unlike Putin who will just kill them or take everything, the europeans will buy them off. The problem is that Russia is stalemating the EU by preserving the conflict.

    So since I’m probably one of the more knowledgeable westerners in Ukraine maybe you should follow incentives rather than RT propaganda.

    The USA did spend money to help pay for the costs of the revolution, but they were reluctant up until the last minute. I know. ‘Cause I was there.

    So go be a russian troll or useful western idiot with someone stupid and ignorant enough to buy your regurgitated propaganda.

    THE OLIGARCHS WERE AFRAID OF YANUKOVICH AND REPLACED HIM.

    I dunno what is so freaking conspiratorial about the damned obviousness of it. teh govenrment owns 80% of the land in ukraine, and they sell it to foreigners for agrarian production. The oligarchs own nearly everything else, and have privatized as much of the commons as is possible. Why this wouldn’t happen regardless of american intervention is something only an idiot can’t understand. Follow the money. Follow the incentives.

    The USA offered to do the one thing that would fix ukrainian corruption, and that was to pay the salaries of the judiciary, and thereby separate and create an independent judiciary that was monitored by westerners.

    That would have fixed ukraine. But the president, the government and the oligarchs resisted it.

    The soviet system remains until the people of ukraine kill enough politicians that they will kill enough olicarchs that they can use european money.

    But here is what will happen: the euro is going to collapse in the next few years. Not long. This will create a profound depression in europe and force an alliance between Russia and Germany.

    Ukraine has only two years of safety yet. And I doubt I am the only person on the planet to figure that out.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 18:21:00 UTC