Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.” (worth rep

    “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.”

    (worth repeating)

    —“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems.

    Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— @[100027748725265:2048:GL Sevier]Updated Oct 22, 2019, 11:22 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 11:22:00 UTC

  • SETTING EXPECTATIONS on “THE BOOK” I have multiple books at different stages of

    SETTING EXPECTATIONS on “THE BOOK”

    I have multiple books at different stages of completion: 1) Essays selected by Michael and Alessandro, 2) Sovereignty which is the reformation of libertarianism, that I pulled out of the main book to shorten it, and 3) Whatever I end up calling the main book – I keep changing the title. 4) The Constitution which itself will be somewhere between a pamphlet and a book; And a fifth 5) which is closer to secular religion that I don’t expect to finish for a decade or more (assuming i live to finish it). Plus 6) We’re producing the Courses that teach the method, and apply it – because two things happened: I got stuck and needed to write the courseware to provide a foundation for the audience and distill it down to something digestible; and secondly, it was clear that we would need an overview.

    The reason is that my main book, which is extremely detailed, full of disambiguations into series and operational language is much more like Keynes’ General Theory (Math) than Marx’s Capital (lies), and on the scope of Heidegger’s attempt at inverting noun and verb, Kant’s attempt at secular theology, Hobbes/Locke/Smith/Hume success at realism and empiricism, and Democritus/Aristotle’s success at naturalism and reason. In other words, just as Aristotle created reason and naturalism, the British Enlightenment created empiricism and realism, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell(et all), Spencer, created science and the precursor to operationalism, I’m at the end of the operationalist stream thanks to Hayek (distributed knowledge, law as falsification), Popper (Knowledge, falsification) , Brouwer, Bridgman, Poincare (operationalism as falsification); Turing, the analytics (operational logic as falsification), Chomsky (continuous recursion) and Mandelbrot(operationalism at scale); And updated with what we’ve learned from cognitive science (language and the language facility, experimental psychology, the study of the brain’s functional areas, and neurology that facilitates them.)

    What does this mean? The Book is not going to reduce all of the Doolittle’s Propertarian Project of rendering the group strategy of western civlization into a formal logic and law to compete with the semitic abrahamic books of deceit, into common language prose – just the opposite. It is a book for other thought leaders, and would be critics.

    When the constitution is done (it isn’t, and john’s right to pressure me to work on it) that will be, as I understand it, the ‘short version’ of everything in a language everyone can – with effort – understand. And then if necessary refer to the big book for further explanation and study (think of it as a reference work). The Constitution – which is a *template* for the construction of ALL human polities regardless of distribution of decision making and returns on gains, is the culmination of the work. The Preface to the Constitution “The White Law” will explain the law beyond which none may tread without incurring retaliation by european men.

    At present we are trying to get Bill and the other guys (i don’t want to commit them by naming them) to teach. But they must have a course or two to teach. This requires I finish my work on the Foundations course and Bill finish his (ePrime-operational prose and more), and I put both of our new content contributions into the book, then finish editing it (which is difficult because it’s technical work).

    I have to repeat this notice regularly but each time I add a bit of detail. Part of my strategy was to create demand for the work by working in public. However, I want to perform due diligence against misrepresentation by frequently setting expectations, particularly of newbies, that if you want some sophomoric ideology to promote under democracy this isn’t it and I wouldn’t do it.

    This is the natural law under which men agree NOT to engage in conquest, predation, enserfement, enslavement, or extermination – and any violation by any excuse whatsoever will simply justify that action. In other words, this strategy, this work, this law, this constitution, is a via-negativa argument for cooperation. It is not the benefits of cooperating without parasitism. It is that the only reason not to prey upon is if we engage in full reciprocity – productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated interests of one another’s ingroups.

    This is european civilization with teeth.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 11:13:00 UTC

  • “Curt, what happened to Eli??”— Banned in the purge. He’s occupied with person

    —“Curt, what happened to Eli??”—

    Banned in the purge. He’s occupied with personal stuff. We see him on twitter. But he’ll be back when he gets things settled.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 10:18:00 UTC

  • TODAY’S P-QUIZ : “WRONG” . Disambiguate, Serialize, and Operationalize the term

    TODAY’S P-QUIZ : “WRONG”

    .

    Disambiguate, Serialize, and Operationalize the term “Wrong”.

    .

    1. Collect synonyms and antonyms.

    2. Serialize

    3. Operationalize

    4. State (list) the constant relation(s)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 10:10:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/73007253_491086928154869_23273420177

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/73007253_491086928154869_232734201776963584_o_491086924821536.jpg TODAY’S FIRST QUIZ: WHAT GOES WITH WHAT?

    You’re missing the point. In western aristocratic civilization we ask “How can I make the world a better place, and profit from it, by contributing to it?” Whereas some say the world is a better place for others, how can I get more of it for me? The immoral say only “How can I make make the most profit and survive it?” The foolish say “My world is great, so how can i give it away to others?” And (d) the Enemy Says “How can I make the world a worse place, and profit from it, by undermining it?”

    Now which GROUP or CLASS says what?

    Let’s expand and list the questions:

    a. How can I make it better, and profit from it?

    b. How can I get more of it?

    c. How can I maximize my take from it?

    d. How can I redistribute it to others?

    e. How can I profit from making it worse?

    Now answer who exercises each strategy?

    a) conservatives: aristocratic egalitarian europeans.

    b) ?

    c) ?

    d) ?

    e) ?TODAY’S FIRST QUIZ: WHAT GOES WITH WHAT?

    You’re missing the point. In western aristocratic civilization we ask “How can I make the world a better place, and profit from it, by contributing to it?” Whereas some say the world is a better place for others, how can I get more of it for me? The immoral say only “How can I make make the most profit and survive it?” The foolish say “My world is great, so how can i give it away to others?” And (d) the Enemy Says “How can I make the world a worse place, and profit from it, by undermining it?”

    Now which GROUP or CLASS says what?

    Let’s expand and list the questions:

    a. How can I make it better, and profit from it?

    b. How can I get more of it?

    c. How can I maximize my take from it?

    d. How can I redistribute it to others?

    e. How can I profit from making it worse?

    Now answer who exercises each strategy?

    a) conservatives: aristocratic egalitarian europeans.

    b) ?

    c) ?

    d) ?

    e) ?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 10:10:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED Marriage is a private contract yes,

    NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED

    Marriage is a private contract yes, but it is insured by the community, because of the consequences of broken families placing a burden via moral hazard on the community. So, a marriage contract consists (under natural law) as partnership (not corporation) constructed by the mutual exchange of powers of attorney limited only by those limitations stated, but insured by the polity, and therefore the law (judiciary), against interference that would cause harm unrestitutable harm to family members. As such interference in a marriage exposes one to liability for (very large) damages. And distribution of fault is determined court if not determined by the parties. There is no community property. The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal. The law can have no position on divorce, other than empirical, which is that immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce. Mature children may decide which to live with if parents accept their responsibility as insurer. Upon maturity (puberty) that decision belongs to the children. But no liability exists in either direction. That means no alimony, no child support. Because marriages are transitory, and while a woman may sell her sex, affection, and caretaking the man must sell his productivity.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 22:00:00 UTC

  • FORMULA FOR A FILM SCRIPT: PAGES By Gene Turnbow (Quora) As much as I wish it we

    FORMULA FOR A FILM SCRIPT: PAGES

    By Gene Turnbow (Quora)

    As much as I wish it weren’t so, there is still a formula for a film script.

    Your action had better start before page 10 or you’re toast. This is about 10% of the way through your script, and it’s the opportunity for things to begin changing. The lead character begins the journey, something important happens that throws the future in doubt, and off they go.

    By about the 15% mark, the main character is settling into the groove of exploring the situation, either emotionally or physically.

    By the 25% mark, it starts to become clear that there is a specific situation that needs to be resolved, and the lead character needs to start applying themselves to the task in earnest.

    Your main character needs to have his or her epiphany around page 55 of a 110 page script. That’s the point of no return. Moving forward from here means there’s no going back. The lead character is now fully committed to whatever it is that must be done. The stakes become more clear, and the details of the complications unfold.

    At the 75% mark, there is a major setback. This sets the stage for the final conflict or battle, again, whether it’s physical or emotional. The final push for resolution begins.

    At the 90% mark, it’s time for the final conflict that the entire film is leading up to. Against all odds, the girl gets the boy; the boy gets the girl; the girl frees her city; the beleaguered improbable company lands its first big contract; the planet killer is destroyed.

    Then at the end, some kind of closure happens. We get to see that happily ever after as a payoff for sitting through all that, but it means something to us now because we understand what’s been at stake and how hard the character has had to fight to get there.

    Not every screenplay follows this formula, but pretty much all the successful ones do. If you’re trying to sell a screenplay, if you’re not following this, you’re going to have a very hard time.

    Don’t fool yourself into thinking that this formula doesn’t matter. The people who read scripts for production companies assess scripts by checking what happens at these percentage points in the script and can figure out if the script is worth reading in its entirety based on just that, in a matter of about three minutes. The slush piles are piled high with scripts that don’t meet this basic requirement.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 21:55:00 UTC

  • Disagreeableness. 😉 (diary) I treated college as a purely commercial exercise a

    Disagreeableness. 😉

    (diary)

    I treated college as a purely commercial exercise and couldn’t have cared less about grades, homework, professors’ opinions, or anything other than whether I was learning something I thought was interesting and valuable. I loved my education in the arts. I still do. its precious to me. I loved contract law. I found political science immoral. I found engineering obvious and tedious. And my only major mistake was not moving into literature when the department asked me. If I’d taken philosophy and literature I would have excelled more so than in the arts – where my primary concern was technique theory and history. I never had any intention of doing anything other than running a business. Education was purely ‘for me’. But I might have had a very different life if someone had said “you know, when a department asks you to join you don’t say no unless you have a very good reason”. I didn’t have a reason to say no. I loved college. I only realized much later that my health problems started early – probably when I got that damned flu. I kept take classes in something or other until the dot com era, where it was simply too impossible to make time. Founding Ascentium was just a dead heat from day one and between that and health I didn’t have anything left. I was pretty ill I think by the time I left college. I just didn’t feel right. And so began a lifetime of doctors without letting anyone know I was having health problems because it’s damaging to your career. That said, founded or built one company after another until illness convinced me that it was do or die so to speak, and that if I didn’t start working full time on it I wouldn’t have time for it.

    What’s the lesson here? I dunno. i certainly wouldn’t have taken the AI->Law -> Hayek->Popper -> economics route if I’d done it otherwise, so it’s a choice between two worlds one of which exists and one of which is only imagined.

    Best advice from an older family member: “You never want to be forty and say ‘I wish I had….’. I took it. I didn’t. I don’t. Not because this path has been other than fulfilling, but that I simply wonder what that other path might have led to. I think I might have been a lot happier in some ways and not in others.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 21:48:00 UTC

  • I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH —

    https://grist.org/…/how-food-forests-and-people-are…/UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers.

    Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons.

    The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ).

    The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry.

    Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade.

    Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period.

    The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries.

    The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century.

    The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property.

    As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism.

    The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in

    The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism.

    The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges.

    The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons.

    This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth.

    CheersUpdated Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 20:54:00 UTC

  • “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF

    “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”

    —“…

    … One Law to Rule Them All

    … One Law to Find Them

    … One Law to Bring Them All

    … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence,

    … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets

    … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into

    … the Gods we Imagined….

    … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version:

    1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only.

    2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.

    3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).

    4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons.

    5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public.

    6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech…

    7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable.

    8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common.

    9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury.

    10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here.

    Notes:

    Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt.

    Notes continued:

    But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal.

    Notes continued:

    Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 17:21:00 UTC