Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WE ADVOCATE HUMAN RIGHTS, ARE WE RESTORING IMPERIALISM? Lets first state that th

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=34703609WHEN WE ADVOCATE HUMAN RIGHTS, ARE WE RESTORING IMPERIALISM?

    Lets first state that the question itself is stated as a deceit. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. ) The correct phrasing of such a question is:

    “Is the Human Rights Initiative an extension of Imperialism?”

    1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation. Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy. Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior. So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

    2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest. In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

    In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order. The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

    3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors. And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

    So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 02:18:00 UTC

  • Telling provides the Broken Window Theory of an economy just as orderliness of t

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theoryTruth Telling provides the Broken Window Theory of an economy just as orderliness of the commons provides the Broken Window Theory of Norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 01:59:00 UTC

  • To those men awake abed: take ten of them with you into the night. That is all t

    To those men awake abed: take ten of them with you into the night.

    That is all that is needed.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 01:22:00 UTC

  • RESTORING LIBERTY Restoring Liberty required that I restore the requirement for

    RESTORING LIBERTY

    Restoring Liberty required that I restore the requirement for violence.

    To possess Liberty requires the ability to construct it against desires of the naturally parasitic hordes, and to maintain it in the face of their over reproduction and temporal consumption.

    For one cannot posess a condition of Liberty by permission. And without the ability to use violence to require forcibly create and maintain Liberty one cannot possess Liberty but only permission.

    So this is the purpose of my emphasis on violence. Our efforts to first seize power from the martial aristocracy, then to justify our commercial colonialism, then to mollify our women, then to allow virtue signaling by the academy, state, and media’s recruitment of the immoral hordes, resulted in the incremental loss of our violence, our Liberty, and our civilization.

    We must rule. If not out of moral obligation to the rest of humanity that is incapable of it, but our if nothing more than self defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 01:21:00 UTC

  • TRUTH. CAN VS IS. (important) Since all general rules are informationally incomp

    TRUTH. CAN VS IS.

    (important)

    Since all general rules are informationally incomplete until stated in a context of application, It is not that statements are, or are not true. It is that statements CAN or CANNOT be true. Where by “True” we mean, subjectively reconstructed rather than analytically correspondent.

    Is True = Correspondent = Justificationism

    Can be True = Reconstruction = Critical.

    (Our language is a prison built of convenience, much of which is the fault of mathematics.)

    “that can or cannot be true” is very different from “that is or is not true”.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 23:25:00 UTC

  • Dear politicians and bureaucrats. Let me help you. The constitution lists my rig

    Dear politicians and bureaucrats. Let me help you.

    The constitution lists my rights as an englishman.

    But you misunderstand them.

    It is a list of the things we let you do, rather than kill you.

    If you abridge that document you do not violate an abstract principle.

    You violate the only reason I do not kill you.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 13:59:00 UTC

  • (humor) Zombie Apocalypse, where people run around and take all the stuff no one

    (humor)

    Zombie Apocalypse, where people run around and take all the stuff no one else can defend, is the white version of urban rioting.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:51:00 UTC

  • ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE SCRIPT ADVICE 101 Look at photos of the most horrible places i

    ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE SCRIPT ADVICE 101

    Look at photos of the most horrible places in the world, and you will find that people adapt. They laugh. Joke. They get about their business. They do what they need to. They don’t moralize.

    You know what the zombie apocalypse looks like? A lot of people having a lot of fun mowing down other people. We are hella good at it. And hella good at enjoying it. And hella good at celebrating it.

    Are you kidding? Depressed zombie hunters?

    Lets get real. People will miss the past for not much longer than it takes to adapt to the present.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:45:00 UTC

  • are the first things one should know in political theory? 1. The first question

    https://t.co/KVOTCI8R4EWhat are the first things one should know in political theory? https://t.co/KVOTCI8R4E

    1. The first question of **ethics** is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.

    2. The first question of **politics** is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”

    3. The first question of **group evolutionary strategy** is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”

    4. The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because **cooperating in a division of labor **is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.

    5. So, how do we **organize** group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?

    6. Answering this question requires facing a very **unpleasant fac****t**, that the problem we face is** human capital **(talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.

    7. So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources. The most obvious are

    * the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys

    * the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions

    * the egalitarian forest and river regions.

    * the equalitarian polar peoples

    * Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them. Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do.

    * All groups require:

    * A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage)

    * A method of organizing production (an economy)

    * A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education)

    * A method of producing commons (government)

    * A method of holding territory (army)

    * There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy:

    * Propertarian / Libertarian / **Capitalist** / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory. Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work.

    * **Mixed Economy** of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible.

    * Authoritarian / Totalitarian / **Socialist** / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work.

    * All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly.

    * The method of deciding ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities.

    * That is about all there is to political theory.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:35:00 UTC

  • HUMAN RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO SOVEREIGNTY? (obviously a non-english speaker in india

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=46c45223ARE HUMAN RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO SOVEREIGNTY?

    (obviously a non-english speaker in india posted this question)

    The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged. However, the misleading nature of the question aside:

    The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure. But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire.

    In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.

    This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves. Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus. So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.

    Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive. There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.

    South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out. The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions. The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 11:39:00 UTC