Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Another Reason Why. I prefer my art in human form

    Another Reason Why. I prefer my art in human form.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 07:37:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY : A KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS I think that’s the most reductive sta

    ARISTOCRACY : A KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 07:23:00 UTC

  • MY MANY TERMINOLOGY CRITICS 🙂 I don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entri

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/TO MY MANY TERMINOLOGY CRITICS 🙂

    I don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’.

    In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually).

    But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer.

    I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable.

    Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification.

    My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:38:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS Ideas are easy to communicate if you start wi

    THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS

    Ideas are easy to communicate if you start with an assumption and then justify it.

    They are a lot harder to communicate if you start with a problem and then try to solve it.

    You can only make a simple statement at the end of the process.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:26:00 UTC

  • (FACK) WE ANTHROPOMORPHIZED TRUTH FOR THE SAME REASON WE ANTHROPOMORPHIZED GODS.

    (FACK) WE ANTHROPOMORPHIZED TRUTH FOR THE SAME REASON WE ANTHROPOMORPHIZED GODS.

    Sigh. Argumentation Ethics did teach me something. The vast cost of what we surrender when we enter into debate.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:22:00 UTC

  • ALL RELIGIONS NEED A BOOK All religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under

    ALL RELIGIONS NEED A BOOK

    All religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested.

    If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance.

    The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:20:00 UTC

  • Frank Lovell Bruce Caithness THANKS. PROGRESS. Wanted to thank you for your help

    Frank Lovell Bruce Caithness

    THANKS. PROGRESS.

    Wanted to thank you for your help over the past few days. I will never be able to repay your advice, patience and efforts.

    While I didn’t quite solve the problem of connecting truth and ethics, I got much closer because of our conversation. (My fitful floundering and your criticisms.)

    You helped me uncover a great insight into how to get to the answer that I am seeking.

    I place so much value on scientific inquiry myself, and am so biased by it, that the obvious doesn’t always make it into my range of vision. Science is not commonly governed by exchange, but ethics are. Epistemologically speaking, the criteria of truth in physical science is a constant that is independent of our perception and never complete. But the criteria for truth in voluntary exchange is not quite the same. So when I make a promise, what is being exchanged? Is a scientist making a promise when he proposes theory? If so, what is he promising? If I testify in court, I am making a promise. What am I promising? When I say ‘the snow is white’, what am I promising? Only humans can act. Why is it that we are afraid of admitting or promises? Why do we anthropomorphize our utterances? (That is a very interesting question, and I think, the source of the problem in our language.)

    The market for science is inverted. We “sell” products (theories) the value of which is their defects. In the consumer market, everyone else sells products the value of which is the fulfillment of their promises. In the political market, I think that the value of most ‘products’ is deception that can be used to justify the involuntary transfer of assets from some to others.

    Scientists warranties its ethics, but not its products. A producer of goods warranties his products not his efforts. What does a politician or public intellectual warranty?

    One step at a time. It’s like slogging through mud. lol

    Cheers.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:11:00 UTC

  • (Getting closer. Day by day. Hour by hour. Sentence by sentence.)

    (Getting closer. Day by day. Hour by hour. Sentence by sentence.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:55:00 UTC

  • THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING

    The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

    The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

    But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

    It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

    Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

    We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

    Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:55:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM (important piece) Propertarianis

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM

    (important piece)

    Propertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty.

    Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures.

    Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere.

    This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms.

    If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy.

    That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:14:00 UTC