Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ( I didn’t realize that evangelicals considered ‘piety’ a dirty word. They offer

    ( I didn’t realize that evangelicals considered ‘piety’ a dirty word. They offer humility – sovereignty of all, not piety – submission. )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 02:31:00 UTC

  • (I see what the germans do now. they create stoicism through duty and craftsmans

    (I see what the germans do now. they create stoicism through duty and craftsmanship. fuk. it’s that simple.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 02:31:00 UTC

  • Eli at his best. Note how he constructs full accounting of costs

    Eli at his best. Note how he constructs full accounting of costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 23:03:00 UTC

  • EVERYWHERE WE HAVE PROLES MANAGING PROLES IT FALLS APART. There is a limit to th

    EVERYWHERE WE HAVE PROLES MANAGING PROLES IT FALLS APART.

    There is a limit to the scale of aristocracy. There is a limit to proletarian capability. There is no means of proceduralizing it.

    Police need to be knights but they are foot soldiers.

    Prison guards need to be squires but they are ditch diggers.

    Moral education worked.

    We can go back to it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 10:57:00 UTC

  • FIRST PRINCIPLES: PARASITISM IS BAD, COOPERATION IS GOOD. Curt Doolittle I start

    FIRST PRINCIPLES: PARASITISM IS BAD, COOPERATION IS GOOD.

    Curt Doolittle

    I start with parasitism is bad.

    Erskine Fincher

    You can’t start with “X is bad.” You first have to define your standard of good and bad, and before that you need to explain why one even needs a standard, and before that you need to explain how you are able to know any of that.

    The problem isn’t that individual libertarians don’t have answers to these questions. The problem is that the Libertarian Movement itself is agnostic on the subject of foundational philosophy, because it wants to accommodate the widest number of “allies” possible, even if those allies hold contradictory opinions that undermine its position.

    That’s why you end up with prominent cranks like Augustus Sol Invictus, and presidential candidates like Ron Paul, who want to restrict a woman’s right to abortion, and entire factions of states’ rights advocates who think that while denying individual rights at the federal level is bad, denying them at the state level is perfectly fine.

    Curt Doolittle

    Erskine, you absolutely can start with x is bad if x is the reason humans cooperate, and without x they won’t cooperate. Because the incentive to cooperat, and the disincentive to cooperate, are the first principles of all cooperation.

    I used to think libertarian thought was fairly good, but it’s actually a half truth just like everything else.

    Erskine Fincher

    Why is non-cooperation bad?

    What do you mean by cooperation?

    What do you mean when you say that something is bad? What makes a thing bad?

    Curt Doolittle

    What makes non-cooperation bad:

    1) disproportionately diminished productivity

    2) deprivation

    3) competitive incompetence

    4) conquest

    5) extermination.

    What makes something bad in the abstract

    1) dissatisfaction

    2) deprivation

    3) suffering

    4) conquest

    5) enslavement

    6) death

    Then we have the difference between oral statement and demonstrated action (common in all walks of life)

    People say that they prefer something to the current state but demonstrate that they do not.

    People prefer complaining about others rather than expending the effort to change their lot.

    Libertarians prefer social democracy to libertarian society.

    Demonstrated preference differs from demonstrated ‘goods’.

    People demonstrate a preference for acquisition, inventory, and experience at all times.

    What they demand comes at a cost. Yet they are unwilling to pay for it. So they do not clearly prefer it despite their protestations.

    Erskine Fincher

    I’m not going to go through each one of those. Let me just take one as an example of how you are not getting down to fundamentals. Why is deprivation bad? The Spartans considered it good. Christian monks considered it good. Deliberate self-deprivation has been practiced by lots of groups as a way of disciplining their desires. Is that bad? If so, why?

    Curt Doolittle (lost post?)

    Is it deprivation if you choose it? It’s only deprivation if you don’t choose it.

    Curt Doolittle

    Let me start it differently:

    Why don’t I kill you and take your territory, women, goods, enslave your children? That is a good for me. Clearly a good for me. Why not?

    (This is the Genghis Kahn argument that helps illustrate the fallacy of Rothbard’s Crusoe’s Island, and the existence of rights prior to contract.)

    Curt Doolittle

    (It helps to illustrate the difference between a personal good and an aggregate good. And while it may seem difficult to determine an aggregate good ‘by starting in the middle’ we then see that by starting at the first cause, limits the choice in the middle.)

    Curt Doolittle So you’re saying that if I think I can kill you and take your things then that killing you and taking your things is a good. And that if I cannot that cooperating with you is the next best good?

    And that boycotting you is the least best good?

    There are only three choices right? Take, cooperate, ignore?

    Erskine Fincher

    Because the initiation of force is a violation of the principle of individual rights–a principle which supports your own life–and a negation of reason, which is man’s fundamental tool of survival, and that which undermines your survival cannot be good.

    Curt Doolittle

    Well no such principle exists unless we enter into a contract constructing it.

    (CD: note that a ‘principle’ exists for the purpose of decidability)

    So Why does Genghis Kan not just kill you, take your women, enslave your children, take your territory and goods? Why not?

    Erskine Fincher

    Does the Law of Gravity not exist if we don’t enter into a contract constructing it?

    Curt Doolittle

    it is ‘good’ for him to do so, in the sense that it is personally preferable. But the term ‘good’ does not mean preferable, it means a common good.

    Erskine Fincher

    You are confused about the nature of moral principles. They are not subjective social constructs.

    Erskine Fincher

    They are requirements for human life.

    Curt Doolittle

    We don’t create gravity but we create contract provisions. You are confusing a natural law of cooperation without which we cannot cooperate and gain the benefits of cooperation with the fact that cooperation is only beneficial when conquest is not more beneficial.

    No they are not requirements for human life erskine, they are requirements for the construction of a division of labor.

    If the Khan kills you and takes your things and rapes your women and then 15% of all asian people are his offspring then by any measure that is ‘good’ for him.

    There are what, three men that most of europe is descended from? Clearly it was ‘good’ for them.

    Erskine Fincher

    Well, you’re wrong, but I can’t stick around to explain why. Need to get my shower and leave the house. I have monsters to slay, and worlds to save. Take care.

    Curt Doolittle

    So:

    (a) since there are only three choices conquest, cooperation, and boycott, of these, conquest the shortest best at the highest cost, cooperation longest at low cost, and avoidance at no cost but no gain

    (b) cooperation is a good because the returns on cooperation are much higher than non-cooperation. (the Kahn did not kill and rob the Chinese because it was more profitable by far to tax them (just as it is for current governments).

    (c) It is convenient to start (as does Hoppe) with the assumption of cooperation as a steady state. Whereas cooperation is a PREFERENCE, not a necessity, and not an assumption.

    (d) the way we make cooperation preferable is to raise the cost of conquest, and maintain the disadvantage of boycott. In this way we create a world in which the only rational choice is cooperation. We do this through insuring one another against conquest and prohibiting one another from participating in trade with those who we boycott.

    (e) But we must limit the harm done in cooperation, since man readily engages in parasitism under the cloak of the promise of cooperation: killing, harming, stealing, blackmail, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by obfuscation, fraud by indirection, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, and conquest. So we construct property rights: so that we promise to insure one another against infringement upon them. Property rights exist as an insurance by a group to protect a range of property, that is a subset of possible property (that which I bear cost to obtain without imposing cost upon the inventory of others). So we insure one another.

    (f) So the production of rights (mutual insurance) is and always will be a collective effort not an individual one.

    BTW: It is beyond conceivable that I err. Sorry. And it might sound arrogant but it’s inescapable.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 10:53:00 UTC

  • THERE ARE STILL POOR MISGUIDED LIBERTINES OUT THERE —I find it interesting tha

    THERE ARE STILL POOR MISGUIDED LIBERTINES OUT THERE

    —I find it interesting that Objectivists claim that all knowledge is empirical (a performative contradiction)—Daniel Rothschild

    This is a common misinterpretation of the word ’empirical’. When someone says all knowledge is empirical, it means everything we remember is constructed from the senses. As far as I know very few philosophers dispute this. So, ’empirical’ in the sciences means observable. And to prevent error, by extension it means only “consistently observable, measurable, and recordable”. Consistent correspondence with reality.

    The question of empiricism has largely been one of whether the apriori holds the same utility as the empirical. And for the purpose of hypothesis generation it seems to. For the purpose of deduction it appears not, since in all but reductio examples, we can construct no unlimited propositions of reality that we can as in, say, mathematics, which must introduce scale (‘the axiom of choice”) and time in order to restore correspondence. But because of the determinism of the universe it’s relatively scale independent for the purposes of human action and cognition.

    So in this sense, neither the empirical nor the aprior allow for deduction of apodeitically certain (axiomatic) answers. Instead, both the empirical and the apriori allow us to construct hypotheses which we can criticize and see if they survive as truth candidates.

    Although, I didn’t know the philosophers of the libertarian era personally (I came into this work a bit late) the last century had a great deal of difficulty with philosophy, and libertarians were not immune to it. Perhaps less immune to it.

    When making such claims as the libertarians do, most of it is not defensible. I won’t go into the history of it here, but they were trying to construct some equivalent to talmudic law – and failed. Law is justificationary, contractual, and deductive – . Truth is critical and evolutionary – it survives criticism, and we warrant its survival of criticism when we make a promise of truth claim.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 10:42:00 UTC

  • IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ‘GOODS’ AS IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE ‘BADS’. Th

    IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ‘GOODS’ AS IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE ‘BADS’.

    The greatest problem societies face is maintaining cooperation while at the same time suppression the underclasses – almost all of which present an tragic impediment to the improvement of society.

    This is the story of the 21st century: the reversal of the enlightenment fallacy that people are kept down.

    CAPITAL

    Human Capital (genetic capital)

    Reproductive Capital (breeding age females)

    Institutional Capital (cooperation)

    Normative Capital (non parasitism)

    Technological Capital (transformation)

    Knowledge Capital (education)

    Territorial Capital (trade routes etc)

    Resource Capital (resources and scale)

    Built Capital (monuments, improvements)

    Private Property (transformable capital)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:28:00 UTC

  • (lyrics)(poetry) This song came out when I was in college. And while it’s a catc

    (lyrics)(poetry)

    This song came out when I was in college. And while it’s a catchy tune by a natural tenor, the reason it held me was the intertemporality of the lyrics. And like many subconscious suggestions it has become part of my metaphysical perceptions of my life – albeit not as a musician.

    I loved my wife Allora – more than I thought possible – but you know, she told me she would leave me if I engaged in revolutionary activities. When I was becoming very active against Clinton’s interference in ancient culture of the military, and was writing propaganda for the militias, she came out pretty hard against it. So for about ten years I ‘mellowed’. But I eventually came to see that restraint as strangling the purpose to which I felt I must dedicate my life.

    I think that my marriage represents my hiatus. But after the first bout of cancer I felt I was both running out of time, and running out of patience. So like many people who recover from a serious illness and value each and every day as precious, I began working very hard on how to create a rational langauge for politics. And by 2006 I had made my first draft of what will become propertarianism. It was terrible and very long, and like most people, a tale of history without cause. It told me how much I had to learn. THen In 2009 I tried again, and that draft led me to my 2013 draft of only 200 pages. But then I felt I needed to understand even more – particularly truth. And that is when the magic happened and everything came together.

    —-

    But there are times that you feel you’re part of the scenery

    all the greenery …. is coming down, ….. boy.

    And then your wife seems to think you’re part of the furniture……

    oh, it’s peculiar,…… she used to be so nice.

    You never see what you want to see…

    Forever playing to the gallery.

    And when you’re up on the stage, it’s so unbelievable,

    unforgettable,….. how they adore…… you,

    But then your wife seems to think you’re losing your sanity,

    Does it feel that you life’s become a catastrophe?

    But does it have to be?…… For you to grow, … boy.

    So, when the day comes to settle down,

    Who’s to blame if you’re not around?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:21:00 UTC

  • WOMEN UNLEASHED THE GHOULS OF SOCIETY —“Here’s the dirty secret of women worki

    WOMEN UNLEASHED THE GHOULS OF SOCIETY

    —“Here’s the dirty secret of women working — they can do what they want but here ya go — when they started entering the work force in mass, the ghouls of society took over raising the kids and installing Mental Malware into their mush brains. Stress was raised in the house, since both partners were dead ass tired at the end of the day, oh and with all that extra income, they first just spent more of it, then the government figured out they could just tax the surplus — and now we went from it being a choice for women to work to being a requirement — and collectively have the same purchasing power they did before when only the husband worked.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:01:00 UTC

  • SOUTH AFRICA, THEN AMERICA – THE LOVE OF MURDER OF THE WHITE MAN

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/video-kids-scream-i-want-to-kill-him-while-battering-trump-pinata-in-portland-oregon/FIRST SOUTH AFRICA, THEN AMERICA – THE LOVE OF MURDER OF THE WHITE MAN

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 05:50:00 UTC