Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Disambiguation of Government (Bankruptcy)

    [D]isambiguation:

    1. Military > State > Government > Commons > institutions-organization
    2. Rule of Law > Law > Courts > Contracts > Biz-trade
    3. Strategy+Tradition > Religion+Education+Academy+Media > Families/Consumers > People-consumption

    State (corporation holding assets) 1. Federal State -> Federal Government 2. … Regional State -> Regional Government 3. … … Territorial: County Corporation -> County Government 4. … … Market: Local Corporation -> Local Government If a state declares bankruptcy the creditors get screwed all or partly. The state has demonstrated incompetence in the management of state affairs, and then the creditors will seek higher interest rates in the future, and after a cycle or two governments ‘learn’ partly because they have evidence of the consequences after bankruptcy and no evidence prior to bankruptcy – just as we now have evidence of immigration, diversity, monetary policy, and democracy – evidence of failure seems to be necessary to prevent repetition of human hubris. The state as a monopoly on violence is evidently false because it was a construct of the westphalian peace. At present it’s falsified, just as it was prior to the westphalian peace. In other words it was always false. The state is a corporation. The institutions organize the use of assets. The owners of that corporation consist of a small number of people willing to use sufficient violence to prevent alternative organizations of institutions and assets. The people who govern may or may not constitute sufficient violence to do so. Usually they don’t. In china they do. In russia they do. Because the fear of chaos in those countries is the opposite of the love of opportunity in NE European civilizations. – something the rest of the world cannot comprehend – because they never developed trust or commons … as we did.

  • How Do We Define Economics? It Took Time…

    Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:

    —“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—

    John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:

    —“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—

    Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

    —“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—

    Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:

    —“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—

    Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :

    —The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—

    I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation. I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.

  • How Do We Define Economics? It Took Time…

    Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:

    —“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—

    John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:

    —“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—

    Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

    —“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—

    Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:

    —“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—

    Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :

    —The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—

    I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation. I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.

  • Where Does the Propertarian Party Fit Into the Propertarian Movement?

    By Nathen I have been thinking about where this political party fits into the movement as a whole quote a bit recently. P is fundamentally an intellectual, not political movement, but it has profound political ramifications. I consider myself a Newb so take this for what it’s worth, but my observation is that Curt Doolittle is focusing primarily on developing leaders and teachers who can spread and grow this next intellectual revolution. While leaders like John Mark (who provided my introduction to P through his Youtube videos), ITV, Brandon Hayes, Bill Joslin and Noah Revoy are sharing the intellectual and political ideas of P with many people, there is not, as far as I know, a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization yet. In my opinion, this is the purpose of the Propertarian Party. While the internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and connecting people, we are hardwired for face-to-face interaction. If our goal is to enact real change, it must happen in meatspace, not in the electronic ether. While display and word can happen electronically, these must eventually be translated into deed. Deeds require hands and muscles and sweat and blood. If we talk but do not act, we are useless and have no place in the Pack. The effectiveness of political parties is in being able to look your neighbor in the eye and speak to him about how your political ideas can improve his life. Face-to-face communication is visceral, not just intellectual. People can experience your conviction, or lack thereof, much more completely. Consider the possibilities of setting up a table at a gun show (once we start having them again). Having the opportunity to meet dozens, if not hundreds of like-minded people from your area and talk to them about the solutions that P offers. People are familiar and comfortable with political parties. This may make us more approachable. The Party may also be a good vehicle for fund-raising. Another consideration is what happens after we achieve victory (we will) and the Propertarian Constitution, or as I think of it, the Revitalized US Constitution is enacted? How will these 1000 Aristocracies bloom? Having multiple local Propertarian Party organizations already in place will make the transition quicker and more focused. It all comes down to Boots On The Ground. This Group is a great way to start the process, but ultimately it is each of our responsibility to begin talking to people in our communities and introducing them to Propertarianism. The Propertarian Party is a vehicle to make it easier to start that conversation, but WE must be it’s advocates. We must each be willing to speak the difficult and uncomfortable truths directly to another person knowing we may anger or offend them and that we may get yelled at or even physically assaulted. Are you ready and willing to stand in front of another man and speak the truth he needs to hear even if it upsets him? Are you ready to deal with GSRRM right in your face? I am. Do you have the courage to stand up in front of a group of strangers and tell the truth regardless of cost?

  • Where Does the Propertarian Party Fit Into the Propertarian Movement?

    By Nathen I have been thinking about where this political party fits into the movement as a whole quote a bit recently. P is fundamentally an intellectual, not political movement, but it has profound political ramifications. I consider myself a Newb so take this for what it’s worth, but my observation is that Curt Doolittle is focusing primarily on developing leaders and teachers who can spread and grow this next intellectual revolution. While leaders like John Mark (who provided my introduction to P through his Youtube videos), ITV, Brandon Hayes, Bill Joslin and Noah Revoy are sharing the intellectual and political ideas of P with many people, there is not, as far as I know, a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization yet. In my opinion, this is the purpose of the Propertarian Party. While the internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and connecting people, we are hardwired for face-to-face interaction. If our goal is to enact real change, it must happen in meatspace, not in the electronic ether. While display and word can happen electronically, these must eventually be translated into deed. Deeds require hands and muscles and sweat and blood. If we talk but do not act, we are useless and have no place in the Pack. The effectiveness of political parties is in being able to look your neighbor in the eye and speak to him about how your political ideas can improve his life. Face-to-face communication is visceral, not just intellectual. People can experience your conviction, or lack thereof, much more completely. Consider the possibilities of setting up a table at a gun show (once we start having them again). Having the opportunity to meet dozens, if not hundreds of like-minded people from your area and talk to them about the solutions that P offers. People are familiar and comfortable with political parties. This may make us more approachable. The Party may also be a good vehicle for fund-raising. Another consideration is what happens after we achieve victory (we will) and the Propertarian Constitution, or as I think of it, the Revitalized US Constitution is enacted? How will these 1000 Aristocracies bloom? Having multiple local Propertarian Party organizations already in place will make the transition quicker and more focused. It all comes down to Boots On The Ground. This Group is a great way to start the process, but ultimately it is each of our responsibility to begin talking to people in our communities and introducing them to Propertarianism. The Propertarian Party is a vehicle to make it easier to start that conversation, but WE must be it’s advocates. We must each be willing to speak the difficult and uncomfortable truths directly to another person knowing we may anger or offend them and that we may get yelled at or even physically assaulted. Are you ready and willing to stand in front of another man and speak the truth he needs to hear even if it upsets him? Are you ready to deal with GSRRM right in your face? I am. Do you have the courage to stand up in front of a group of strangers and tell the truth regardless of cost?

  • Market Truth is Terrifying

    Demonic gods are not terrifying except to children. What’s terrifying is market competition and acceptance of our inequality and your status in the market. The solution? Develop alternative markets, not for accomplishment but for adherence.

  • Market Truth is Terrifying

    Demonic gods are not terrifying except to children. What’s terrifying is market competition and acceptance of our inequality and your status in the market. The solution? Develop alternative markets, not for accomplishment but for adherence.

  • P Is a Method of Administering Psychotherapy En-Masse.

    P IS A METHOD OF ADMINISTERING PSYCHOTHERAPY EN-MASSE. by Ryan Drummond

    —“Even political movements can, not without justice, claim to be psychotherapy in the grand manner. The outbreak of war cured many a compulsion neurosis.” — Carl Jung (The Practise of Psychotherapy, p. 6)

    P is a method of administering psychotherapy en-masse.

  • P Is a Method of Administering Psychotherapy En-Masse.

    P IS A METHOD OF ADMINISTERING PSYCHOTHERAPY EN-MASSE. by Ryan Drummond

    —“Even political movements can, not without justice, claim to be psychotherapy in the grand manner. The outbreak of war cured many a compulsion neurosis.” — Carl Jung (The Practise of Psychotherapy, p. 6)

    P is a method of administering psychotherapy en-masse.

  • The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies

    –“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend

    [Y]es, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)