Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Percentage of The Population Can Understand

    (In reference to a post)

    —“If you were to hazard a guesstimate…what percentage of the population can comprehend what you have just written?”–Tom Watt

    Do you mean, CAN, or CAN and would CHOOSE to? I mean, I’m easier to understand than Kant, Menger, and Bohr to pick a few candidates. Many Millions CAN. Of those that CAN, how many would CHOOSE to without some incentive to – well, that’s is something else. That said, you would be very surprised how frequently you could approach some other conservative or libertarian male and ask if they knew about propertarianism…. I mean, I’m not a molyneux or a rothbard or even a hoppe: those are popular thinkers.

    1. If you read the history of the common law it makes more sense.

    2. If you read hayek, then you read my work it starts to make sense.

    3. If you read Epstein’s book on how progressives undermined the constitution it will make even more sense.

    4. If you have a basic grounding in microeconomics more sense

    5. If you have read gary becker’s books on economics applied to social science it will make more sense.

    6. If you know a programming language it makes a lot more sense.

    7. To understand the 20th century you must understand law, economics, programming, and a bit of cognitive science.

    8. If you take my course on foundations you will learn the current state of cognitive science and what it means, what ‘the grammars’ mean, what eprime and operational language means, what sovereignty, reciprocity, and property-in-toto means. Once you have that knowledge, and read my work, and come to understand the failure of the operational revolution outside of the hard sciences, then you’ll understand it all. I don’t write for normies. That’s what John and Eli do.

  • What Percentage of The Population Can Understand

    (In reference to a post)

    —“If you were to hazard a guesstimate…what percentage of the population can comprehend what you have just written?”–Tom Watt

    Do you mean, CAN, or CAN and would CHOOSE to? I mean, I’m easier to understand than Kant, Menger, and Bohr to pick a few candidates. Many Millions CAN. Of those that CAN, how many would CHOOSE to without some incentive to – well, that’s is something else. That said, you would be very surprised how frequently you could approach some other conservative or libertarian male and ask if they knew about propertarianism…. I mean, I’m not a molyneux or a rothbard or even a hoppe: those are popular thinkers.

    1. If you read the history of the common law it makes more sense.

    2. If you read hayek, then you read my work it starts to make sense.

    3. If you read Epstein’s book on how progressives undermined the constitution it will make even more sense.

    4. If you have a basic grounding in microeconomics more sense

    5. If you have read gary becker’s books on economics applied to social science it will make more sense.

    6. If you know a programming language it makes a lot more sense.

    7. To understand the 20th century you must understand law, economics, programming, and a bit of cognitive science.

    8. If you take my course on foundations you will learn the current state of cognitive science and what it means, what ‘the grammars’ mean, what eprime and operational language means, what sovereignty, reciprocity, and property-in-toto means. Once you have that knowledge, and read my work, and come to understand the failure of the operational revolution outside of the hard sciences, then you’ll understand it all. I don’t write for normies. That’s what John and Eli do.

  • Some of Us.

    Some of us change the physical world. Some of us change the social world to change the physical world. Some of us organize the social world to change the physical world. Some of us are stuck with the job of deciding the priority of that which we organize and change in the social and physical worlds. It takes a lot of some of us, to make all of us.

  • Some of Us.

    Some of us change the physical world. Some of us change the social world to change the physical world. Some of us organize the social world to change the physical world. Some of us are stuck with the job of deciding the priority of that which we organize and change in the social and physical worlds. It takes a lot of some of us, to make all of us.

  • Truth, Force, and Agency

    [T]ruth is half the battle (helps develop agency), force (using your agency) is the other half.

    —Alain DwightThe Three Acknowledgments of Agency: 1) I acknowledge that I can exercise some level of control over my thoughts, feelings and actions. 2) I acknowledge that I am responsible to control my thoughts, feelings and actions to the best of my ability (within my natural limits). 3) I acknowledge that I must put in work to develop the mental and physical fortitude necessary to exercise my Agency. The first is knowing the truth. The other two are about action. It’s Action that’s essential.

    —Noah J Revoy

  • Truth, Force, and Agency

    [T]ruth is half the battle (helps develop agency), force (using your agency) is the other half.

    —Alain DwightThe Three Acknowledgments of Agency: 1) I acknowledge that I can exercise some level of control over my thoughts, feelings and actions. 2) I acknowledge that I am responsible to control my thoughts, feelings and actions to the best of my ability (within my natural limits). 3) I acknowledge that I must put in work to develop the mental and physical fortitude necessary to exercise my Agency. The first is knowing the truth. The other two are about action. It’s Action that’s essential.

    —Noah J Revoy

  • “Invisible Hand of Nature”

    by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.

  • “Invisible Hand of Nature”

    by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.

  • Red Flag on Blackout Coffee is the Line in the Sand I Think.

    Judicial Review wasn’t enough The 14th Wasn’t Enough Stacking the Court wasn’t enough Eliminating libel, slander, and duel wasn’t enough. Forcible integration wasn’t enough. Outlawing self defense wasn’t enough. Bussing wasn’t enough. Abortion wasn’t enough The ’86 ban wasn’t enough. In the Military wasn’t enough Marriage wasn’t enough. Forcing the bakers to bake wasn’t enough. Bathrooms weren’t enough. Conspiracy against a president wasn’t enough Immigration wasn’t enough Islamic Terrorism Wasn’t Enough Antifa vs Nationalists wasn’t enough Deplatforming wasn’t enough Red Flagging … is Enough. Electoral College … is more than enough. That’s probably enough. Because it isn’t someone else. It’s You.

  • Red Flag on Blackout Coffee is the Line in the Sand I Think.

    Judicial Review wasn’t enough The 14th Wasn’t Enough Stacking the Court wasn’t enough Eliminating libel, slander, and duel wasn’t enough. Forcible integration wasn’t enough. Outlawing self defense wasn’t enough. Bussing wasn’t enough. Abortion wasn’t enough The ’86 ban wasn’t enough. In the Military wasn’t enough Marriage wasn’t enough. Forcing the bakers to bake wasn’t enough. Bathrooms weren’t enough. Conspiracy against a president wasn’t enough Immigration wasn’t enough Islamic Terrorism Wasn’t Enough Antifa vs Nationalists wasn’t enough Deplatforming wasn’t enough Red Flagging … is Enough. Electoral College … is more than enough. That’s probably enough. Because it isn’t someone else. It’s You.