Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • AS DELUDED AS MARX BUT WITH SOME ECONOMIC LITERACY THROWN IN THE MIX TO DAZZLE A

    AS DELUDED AS MARX BUT WITH SOME ECONOMIC LITERACY THROWN IN THE MIX TO DAZZLE AND CONFUSE PEOPLE.

    By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes

    I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop.

    Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force.

    Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal.

    The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded.

    NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm.

    Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures.

    Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 11:04:00 UTC

  • TALEB, WOMEN, AND THE CATHEDRAL Taleb’s early books are an effort to feed his eg

    TALEB, WOMEN, AND THE CATHEDRAL

    Taleb’s early books are an effort to feed his ego (self image)

    His later works are an effort to defend his ego (self image). He made a career popularizing mandelbrot.

    He DID successfully restore ‘whatever doesn’t kill you only serves to make you stronger” as anti-fragility to the popular will but was unsuccessful in turning it into political policy or mandate – because it is contrary to female instinct and females control both the vote, consumer spending, the academy revenues.

    So females control the cathedral complex: state, academy, advertising, marketing, consumption, and males control military, finance, and production which services them. Which has led to this problem.

    As I remind us constantly – everything is institutions and incentives, and incentives always boil down to reproductive strategy, from which the rest of life is merely an exaggerated representation.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:59:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE —“and so you seek to create an environment where one can achieve [

    THE PURPOSE

    —“and so you seek to create an environment where one can achieve [agency].”—

    Correct. I seek to restore the western group evolutionary strategy that we call aristocratic egalitarianism (anyone can rise to aristocracy), that by use of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, jury, and markets in all aspects of life, we incrementally evolve ourselves, our families, our polities, our nations and man into the gods we imagine.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:40:00 UTC

  • DO YOU MEAN BY AGENCY (repeat, repeat, repeat) —“What do you mean by “agency”?

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/01/definition-agency/WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY AGENCY

    (repeat, repeat, repeat)

    —“What do you mean by “agency”? I have a pretty defined legal understanding of it.”—James Louis LaSalle

    ON AGENCY

    Definition

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/01/definition-agency/

    Full Propertarian Context Definition

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/06/28/agency-full-definition-in-context/

    Exposition

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/12/05/whats-the-definition-of-agency-as-you-use-it/

    There is also a short course on it but it was nuked by FB, so I have to reconstruct it.

    ;)Updated Oct 5, 2019, 10:27 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:27:00 UTC

  • ( Uncle, Sinsei, or Curt – whatever. I appreciate the terms of endearment and fa

    ( Uncle, Sinsei, or Curt – whatever. I appreciate the terms of endearment and familiarity. Formalities are for first introductions, and negotiations with the enemy. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:07:00 UTC

  • Mercy is a luxury good. Kindness is an unlimited resource

    Mercy is a luxury good. Kindness is an unlimited resource.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:01:00 UTC

  • TRUST IN IGNORANCE VS UNDERSTANDING IN KNOWLEDGE —“I just don’t trust him [Doo

    TRUST IN IGNORANCE VS UNDERSTANDING IN KNOWLEDGE

    —“I just don’t trust him [Doolittle]”—

    You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories.

    If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement.

    You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument.

    What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. To make matters worse we can speak in operational, pseudoscientific, historical, ideal(logical), sophomoric(philosophical) and occult (religious) terms at these same levels of complexity, which is why we have always had elites selling competing narratives and theories all of them.

    I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control.

    So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself.

    My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading.

    That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the Chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class.

    So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I.

    And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:00:00 UTC

  • My reading of Schmitt. (a) democratic polities are slow and error prone. (duh) (

    My reading of Schmitt.

    (a) democratic polities are slow and error prone. (duh)

    (b) there are times where exception is necessary, by exercise of an authority (dictator) (duh)

    (c) sometimes governments need to be reorganized (not really, just people replaced or functions added or subtracted)

    (d) All polities are in competition against others to institute an order more favorable than the one extant, and this process is why we have states. (duh)

    (e) Germans moralize about right and good and he’s another victim of it. Government is a competitive necessity not a preference, there is only one order we know of that is durable, so use it and stop trying to be creative.

    Ergo: The romans were right that a dynamic government is necessary, that can switch between dictatorial during periods of necessity, and republican during regularities, and semi -democratic in times of prosperity.

    The british solved this by instead dividing powers. So did the americans, although in practice the president is only dictator over some aspects of war.

    For reasons hoppe has illustrated monarchies are superior to dictatorships precisely because there is no competition for the top position, and the monarchy can appoint dictators(generals) and override the parliament (businessmen) as needed.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 20:48:00 UTC

  • When you figure out that it took us two thousand years, and we are still not rea

    When you figure out that it took us two thousand years, and we are still not really back to the level of truthfulness practiced in the year zero; that we didn’t restore roman military capacity until napoleon; that we still haven’t yet restored roman government and law; and that every value we’ve had is the result of restoring Aristotle, it’s f–king terrifying how damaging a dark age can be. So no more dark ages. End the century of deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 20:04:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 18:03:00 UTC