Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their pe

    —“A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people. And that’s what they’re about to learn.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 13:37:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 13:35:00 UTC

  • for high I Q genomes

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2014/10/special-offer-to-readers.html?m=1Request for high I Q genomes

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 10:31:00 UTC

  • Dear Budding Entrepreneurs: Smart people have a disease: they are lazy. They thi

    Dear Budding Entrepreneurs:

    Smart people have a disease: they are lazy. They think too much. And they gather too little information. If you’re thinking rather than researching you’re just lazy, not smart. The same is true of Rationalism versus Empiricism: if you’re thinking rather than researching, then you’re just lazy (and not very bright).

    Smart people exhaust all possible knowledge until the answers all come back the same. Talk to people. Get information. Look at details. As advice. Analyze competitors.

    Smart people don’t plan so much as have clear goals, do lots of research, and seize opportunities. And why to some people fail to do this even if they think they’re smart? Because despite the fact that other humans are the source of knowledge and you need to seek to understand others, to empathize with them, and to work with them – and it’s something you’re simply avoiding.

    If you think you’re smart and efficient – you probably aren’t either of them. You’re avoiding work and avoiding social interaction. And the primary reason you avoid social interaction is fear that your bubble will be burst.

    Advantages are found in unpredictable outliers.

    A plan is a bubble to be burst. A goal is merely the end point obtained by seizing identified opportunities.

    Business plans are sh_t. The ultimate business plan? Find customers. Sell them what they need.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 09:11:00 UTC

  • (Very interesting to watch people’s ability to use propertarianism – the logic o

    (Very interesting to watch people’s ability to use propertarianism – the logic of cooperation – expand far beyond the promise of praxeology – the logic of action. Equally interesting: seeing Hoppe abandon German rationalism in his most recent work – and to at least acknowledge allodial property – originated in violence and aristocratic reciprocal insurance. Equally interesting that MI continues to have so much trouble with funding. So I think I was right: the rothbardians jumped the shark and we are in a new era of liberty. – Cheers)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 08:24:00 UTC

  • Pretty happy with my stance on racism now. Ties in with paying the lower classes

    Pretty happy with my stance on racism now. Ties in with paying the lower classes for construction of capitalism (commons, property rights and the voluntary organization of production). That chapter is ready.

    Not really happy that the impetus for addressing it was provided by the kind of cop I have no respect for shooting an idiot that got out of hand. But the end is that I know how to talk about race and racism now as a solvable problem.

    Thanks all who helped.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 08:14:00 UTC

  • (asthma attacks really suck. seriously.)

    (asthma attacks really suck. seriously.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 08:09:00 UTC

  • THOSE WHO FIGHT SOLDIER: A Soldier fights for enfranchisement/nationalism/imperi

    http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/—” THOSE WHO FIGHT

    SOLDIER: A Soldier fights for enfranchisement/nationalism/imperialism/pride/ – he is an employee or a slave.

    MERCENARY: A Mercenary is a professional who fights for goods (money or other things of value) – he is a businessman.

    WARRIOR – A Warrior is a professional, who fights for honor and to defend ones property / or loved ones–

    – Joseph Santaniello

    PROPERTARIAN CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY

    I. Several (Personal) Property

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    – Physical Body

    – Actions and Time

    – Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    – Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    II. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent again, upon the ORIGIN question above. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

    – Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    – Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

    – Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    III. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    – Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    – Children (genetic reproduction)

    – Familial Relations (security)

    – Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    – Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    – Racial property (racial ties)

    – Organizational ties (work)

    – Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    – Status and Class (reputation)

    IV. Institutional (Community) Property

    Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    – Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    – Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 05:20:00 UTC

  • MORE ON RACE : THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTY My objective is achievement of liberty. Bu

    MORE ON RACE : THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTY

    My objective is achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.

    For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.

    As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.

    The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.

    EQUALITY

    Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).

    An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).

    THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:

    (a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);

    (b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;

    (c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)

    That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.

    ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE

    If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.

    As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 05:10:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID I get a lot of criticism from my friends for trying to ‘hel

    YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID

    I get a lot of criticism from my friends for trying to ‘help’ idiots. And yes, it is often a waste of time in the sense that you can’t change their thinking (much). On the other hand, I learn a lot about how to debate when I do argue with simple folk.

    I saved today’s conversation with (well meaning person) Wes Lysander, and some other twits or two. I can’t post a pdf here so I’ll put it on my site.

    But when I criticize ‘meaning’ rather than ‘truth’, and require definitions, that’s because meaning is dependent upon the imbecile’s abilities and knowledge, whereas truth is not.

    Now, truth is yet another problematic word whose ‘meaning’ is degraded into analogy after analogy. Because the truth content of a term is that which survives testing, not that from which we derive meaning.

    This is why I ask people in propertarianism to use terms only when they understand the entire spectrum in which that terminological point addresses a limited context. This is to ensure that we are not making argument by loose imprecise analogy.

    Often arguments require multiple axis of causality and therefore multiple spectra.

    So meaning is an exceptional device for deception, self deception, and error. (Yes I think I have settled that matter now – self deception is possible by intuitive desire.)

    And the reduction of any term to that which survives the process of elimination by the use of multiple axis of constraint, defines the necessary properties of the term (true), and not the abuses of that term (meaning).

    Just because I can use a shoe to hammer a nail does not mean it is honest to refer to a shoe as a hammer.

    That is what appeals to ‘meaning’ attempt to do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 04:50:00 UTC