Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Is the State Moral?

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    [T]he state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • Is the State Moral?

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    [T]he state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • Q: How Can Violence Be Reciprocal (moral)?

    Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)?

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL: Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

  • Q: How Can Violence Be Reciprocal (moral)?

    Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)?

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL: Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

  • A Few September Quotes

    –“Libertarianism Requires Permission. Sovereigntarianism Doesn’t.”-Curt Doolittle

    –“Western ethics (reciprocity) are scientific. And always have been. For 5000 years. That is why we invented reason and science. We applied our law to everything.”— Curt

    “Sovereignty, liberty and freedom are byproducts not means.”- Curt Doolittle

    —“Testimony … that’s pretty cool as a basis for civilization. Never would have thought of it that way.”—Michael Churchill

    —“You’re not being taught to be white. You’re being taught to be middle class.”- Curt

     —“A Curt-less Facebook is basically worthless.”—Michael Churchill

    —“JFG Introduced me tonight as “The Bad Boy Of Philosophy.”  Made my day.” — Curt

    —“As our ability to select that which is in accordance with truth increases, we converge on godhood, whereas I define God (Gnon) as the self-organizing system of the Universe, the invisible hand of nature.”— Martin Štěpán

    –“Sovereignty, liberty and freedom are byproducts not means.”- Curt Doolittle

    “The problem is, that the computational power of wetware is just far higher than hardware, but hardware is more durable in hostile conditions than wetware. Jello just isn’t that rigid.”— Curt

    —-“Monotheism (not heathenism, or paganism) is the worst thing to happen to mankind after the great plages … there is no thing in christianity that is good that was not there before it, and there is nothing in stoicism and epicureanism that does not provide what christianity provides to the bottom.” — Curt

    —“People don’t have genes, genes have people.”—Martin Štěpán

  • A Few September Quotes

    –“Libertarianism Requires Permission. Sovereigntarianism Doesn’t.”-Curt Doolittle

    –“Western ethics (reciprocity) are scientific. And always have been. For 5000 years. That is why we invented reason and science. We applied our law to everything.”— Curt

    “Sovereignty, liberty and freedom are byproducts not means.”- Curt Doolittle

    —“Testimony … that’s pretty cool as a basis for civilization. Never would have thought of it that way.”—Michael Churchill

    —“You’re not being taught to be white. You’re being taught to be middle class.”- Curt

     —“A Curt-less Facebook is basically worthless.”—Michael Churchill

    —“JFG Introduced me tonight as “The Bad Boy Of Philosophy.”  Made my day.” — Curt

    —“As our ability to select that which is in accordance with truth increases, we converge on godhood, whereas I define God (Gnon) as the self-organizing system of the Universe, the invisible hand of nature.”— Martin Štěpán

    –“Sovereignty, liberty and freedom are byproducts not means.”- Curt Doolittle

    “The problem is, that the computational power of wetware is just far higher than hardware, but hardware is more durable in hostile conditions than wetware. Jello just isn’t that rigid.”— Curt

    —-“Monotheism (not heathenism, or paganism) is the worst thing to happen to mankind after the great plages … there is no thing in christianity that is good that was not there before it, and there is nothing in stoicism and epicureanism that does not provide what christianity provides to the bottom.” — Curt

    —“People don’t have genes, genes have people.”—Martin Štěpán

  • Legit Ad Hom’s Against Doolittle

    [J]ust ’cause it’s come up again.  I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself. I’m not. List of legitimate Ad Hom’s.

    • Multiple marriages. Put business before family.
    • Multiple relationships. Put business and philosophy before relationship.
    • High risk biz ventures most of which succeeded – not all – producing expected downsides when not.
    • Ruthless biz practices, some of which made others rich, that resulted in various suits, as well as various tremendous windfalls.
    • Continuous civil warfare during and after divorce that will continue for the next four to six years easily.
    • Mid life crisis after near death experiences resulted in a bit of a wild ride for a bit.
    • Obsessively – zero tolerance for ‘slights’.
    • Will fight to the end on ‘principle’ – even if it makes no material sense to do so.
    • More than slightly clueless about normie life and experience, and insensitivity to normie world views.
    • Considers other people subjects in social science experiments.
    • Considers each business an experiment in social science.
    • Wealth is merely a means of financing experiments in social science.
    • Considers people vehicles for achieving success in business or social science.
    • “One cares for domesticated animals and pets, one cannot engage in reciprocity with them.” or more fashionably: “A lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep. “
    • Definitely part of the Yuppie-Wall Street Generation.

    These are legit ad homs. They are true. Everyone knows them. They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences. I am not a good person. I succeed because I am an infovore, competitive, with ruthless, predatory, and driven. That is all. I am however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation. I am also not a normie living a working class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. I am not a good person, and don’t claim to be. Truth doesn’t require I be a good person. It requires only that my work is not false. -CD

  • Legit Ad Hom’s Against Doolittle

    [J]ust ’cause it’s come up again.  I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself. I’m not. List of legitimate Ad Hom’s.

    • Multiple marriages. Put business before family.
    • Multiple relationships. Put business and philosophy before relationship.
    • High risk biz ventures most of which succeeded – not all – producing expected downsides when not.
    • Ruthless biz practices, some of which made others rich, that resulted in various suits, as well as various tremendous windfalls.
    • Continuous civil warfare during and after divorce that will continue for the next four to six years easily.
    • Mid life crisis after near death experiences resulted in a bit of a wild ride for a bit.
    • Obsessively – zero tolerance for ‘slights’.
    • Will fight to the end on ‘principle’ – even if it makes no material sense to do so.
    • More than slightly clueless about normie life and experience, and insensitivity to normie world views.
    • Considers other people subjects in social science experiments.
    • Considers each business an experiment in social science.
    • Wealth is merely a means of financing experiments in social science.
    • Considers people vehicles for achieving success in business or social science.
    • “One cares for domesticated animals and pets, one cannot engage in reciprocity with them.” or more fashionably: “A lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep. “
    • Definitely part of the Yuppie-Wall Street Generation.

    These are legit ad homs. They are true. Everyone knows them. They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences. I am not a good person. I succeed because I am an infovore, competitive, with ruthless, predatory, and driven. That is all. I am however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation. I am also not a normie living a working class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. I am not a good person, and don’t claim to be. Truth doesn’t require I be a good person. It requires only that my work is not false. -CD