Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?

    —“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2

    Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So … When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that government is violence. You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:

    1. Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
      .
    2. Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
      .
    3. Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding your claim, or are engaging in deceit?

    In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent?  (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits,  and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking.  Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. This is exactly how the Enemy Left operates:  Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way. Curt Doolittle    

    This question was in response to an earlier post:

    You don’t understand. If information is a good, and a service, then deplatforming is cartelling. Yep. And that’s where we’re going. Cartels. And that is the legal route we’re going to take.  And we’re going to take a LONG time at it. Because longer we take, the more we talk about it, the more of an understanding the public will come to.

  • Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?

    —“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2

    Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So … When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that government is violence. You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:

    1. Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
      .
    2. Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
      .
    3. Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding your claim, or are engaging in deceit?

    In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent?  (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits,  and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking.  Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. This is exactly how the Enemy Left operates:  Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way. Curt Doolittle    

    This question was in response to an earlier post:

    You don’t understand. If information is a good, and a service, then deplatforming is cartelling. Yep. And that’s where we’re going. Cartels. And that is the legal route we’re going to take.  And we’re going to take a LONG time at it. Because longer we take, the more we talk about it, the more of an understanding the public will come to.

  • Others

    Intellectuals (Informal)

    • Daniel Schmachtenberger – Daniel uses similar language, arguments, concepts, and solutions and is part of our generation – one that’s working outside of the academy and its malincentives.  He is more accessible than I am, a better speaker, and his emphasis is on the personal and interpersonal where mine is on the institutional, political, and legal – but the overlap is something worth studying. I find him a fellow traveller so to speak.
    • Shirvan Neftchi – The Caspian Report – Shirvan is a sort of open source version of George Friedman (Geo-Strategy) and Peter Zeihan (GeoFinance), that takes less of a position although he is clearly biased like we all are in tolerance of his region. I think I end up watching most of his videos at some point, mostly because I think he’s the best at reaching the normie world.
    • Jayman (Genetics), HBDChick (Clannishness), and Steve Sailer (Race and IQ)
    • Rolf Degen  – He reviews most of the social science that’s worth reading with proper skepticism. Saves me hours of work every week keeping up.

    Academics (Formal)

    Video and Audio by Related Thinkers This is a group of thinkers that I feel are pursuing the end to a century of pseudoscience by various means.

    • CURT DOOLITTLE – Natural Law and Truth (‘Testimonial’)
    • NASSIM TALEB – Innumeracy – Pseudoscience – Fragility (Rational and Empirical)
    • JONATHAN HAIDT – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Ratio-Empirical)
    • DR. EDWARD DUTTON: The Jolly Heretic – Culling the Population (Ratio-Empirical)
    • JORDAN PETERSON – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Literary Analogy)
    • KEVIN MACDONALD – Professor of Psychology – The Frankfurt School (Historical)
    • RICARDO DUCHESNE – Historical Sociology – Western Civilization (Historical)
    • STEPHEN HICKS – Professor of Philosophy – Postmodernism – Nietzsche (Historical)
    • YURI BEZMENOV – Ex Russian Intelligence (Historical)
    • PETER ZEIHAN – Geopolitical Strategy
    • VICTOR DAVIS HANSON – Military Historian
    • EDWIN VIERA – Constitutional Scholar

    JEFF HAWKINS – NUMENTA – Neuroscience

    THE CENTER FOR BRAINS MINDS AND MACHINES (MIT)

    RAHIM TAGHIZADEGAN – European Vulnerability

    NASSIM TALEB – Innumeracy – Pseudoscience – Fragility (Rational)

    RAZIB KHAN – Genetics

    SCOTT ALEXANDER – Psychology

    JONATHAN HAIDT – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Empirical)

    EDWARD DUTTON – English Anthropologist 

    JORDAN PETERSON – Professor of Psychology – Morality (literary Analogy)

    KEVIN MACDONALD – Professor of Psychology – The Frankfurt School (Historical)

    RICARDO DUCHESNE – Historical Sociology – Western Civilization (Historical)

    STEPHEN HICKS – Professor of Philosophy – Postmodernism – Nietzsche (Historical)

    YURI BEZMENOV – Ex Russian Intelligence

    GEORGE FRIEDMAN – Geopolitical Strategy

    PETER ZEIHAN – Geopolitical Strategy

    VICTOR DAVIS HANSON 

    EDWIN VIERA – The Militia and the Constitution

    FILES

  • Others

    Intellectuals (Informal)

    • Daniel Schmachtenberger – Daniel uses similar language, arguments, concepts, and solutions and is part of our generation – one that’s working outside of the academy and its malincentives.  He is more accessible than I am, a better speaker, and his emphasis is on the personal and interpersonal where mine is on the institutional, political, and legal – but the overlap is something worth studying. I find him a fellow traveller so to speak.
    • Shirvan Neftchi – The Caspian Report – Shirvan is a sort of open source version of George Friedman (Geo-Strategy) and Peter Zeihan (GeoFinance), that takes less of a position although he is clearly biased like we all are in tolerance of his region. I think I end up watching most of his videos at some point, mostly because I think he’s the best at reaching the normie world.
    • Jayman (Genetics), HBDChick (Clannishness), and Steve Sailer (Race and IQ)
    • Rolf Degen  – He reviews most of the social science that’s worth reading with proper skepticism. Saves me hours of work every week keeping up.

    Academics (Formal)

    Video and Audio by Related Thinkers This is a group of thinkers that I feel are pursuing the end to a century of pseudoscience by various means.

    • CURT DOOLITTLE – Natural Law and Truth (‘Testimonial’)
    • NASSIM TALEB – Innumeracy – Pseudoscience – Fragility (Rational and Empirical)
    • JONATHAN HAIDT – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Ratio-Empirical)
    • DR. EDWARD DUTTON: The Jolly Heretic – Culling the Population (Ratio-Empirical)
    • JORDAN PETERSON – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Literary Analogy)
    • KEVIN MACDONALD – Professor of Psychology – The Frankfurt School (Historical)
    • RICARDO DUCHESNE – Historical Sociology – Western Civilization (Historical)
    • STEPHEN HICKS – Professor of Philosophy – Postmodernism – Nietzsche (Historical)
    • YURI BEZMENOV – Ex Russian Intelligence (Historical)
    • PETER ZEIHAN – Geopolitical Strategy
    • VICTOR DAVIS HANSON – Military Historian
    • EDWIN VIERA – Constitutional Scholar

    JEFF HAWKINS – NUMENTA – Neuroscience

    THE CENTER FOR BRAINS MINDS AND MACHINES (MIT)

    RAHIM TAGHIZADEGAN – European Vulnerability

    NASSIM TALEB – Innumeracy – Pseudoscience – Fragility (Rational)

    RAZIB KHAN – Genetics

    SCOTT ALEXANDER – Psychology

    JONATHAN HAIDT – Professor of Psychology – Morality (Empirical)

    EDWARD DUTTON – English Anthropologist 

    JORDAN PETERSON – Professor of Psychology – Morality (literary Analogy)

    KEVIN MACDONALD – Professor of Psychology – The Frankfurt School (Historical)

    RICARDO DUCHESNE – Historical Sociology – Western Civilization (Historical)

    STEPHEN HICKS – Professor of Philosophy – Postmodernism – Nietzsche (Historical)

    YURI BEZMENOV – Ex Russian Intelligence

    GEORGE FRIEDMAN – Geopolitical Strategy

    PETER ZEIHAN – Geopolitical Strategy

    VICTOR DAVIS HANSON 

    EDWIN VIERA – The Militia and the Constitution

    FILES

  • Oops!

    [vc_row full_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle” css=”.vc_custom_1567271771775{margin-top: 100px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

  • Oops!

    [vc_row full_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle” css=”.vc_custom_1567271771775{margin-top: 100px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

  • An Agentist Approach to Divinity

    by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:

    “The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”

    This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.

  • An Agentist Approach to Divinity

    by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:

    “The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”

    This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.

  • Scale of Demonstrated and Permitted Agency

    by Ferdinand Pisaro 

    Scale of Demonstrated [& Permitted] Agency*
|———————------------—>|(+)
(5).(4).(3).(2).(1).(0)
... ... ... ... ... (0) Sovereign (Aristocracy)(Peerage)
... ... ... ... (1) Vassal (Nobility)
... ... ... (2) Tradesman (Burgher) 
... ... (3) Craftsman (Freeman) 
... (4) Laborer (Serf)
(5) Dependent (Slave)

    *With an increase in agency (demonstrated by the scale that an agent can act in) an agent rises through the spectrum of classes. And as an agent gains status the scope of his action increases because he has demonstrated to his peers that he posses the agency to act at his respective scale without producing negative externalities.SELF-DEFENSE Retaliation against impositions upon that in which an agent has invested (paid a cost). As an agent rises in the spectrum of demonstrated-agency, the portfolio of his property increases, and so to the permitted defense he can field. The cost of Peerage/Sovereignty is paid by a deposit of violence and the granting of reciprocal insurance against impositions of cost upon property-en-toto. Complete-Peerage requires perfect reciprocity, including the requirement for symmetrical information. Thus dispute-resolution between peers requires warrantied, truthful testimony—that is, decidability in dispute resolution amongst peers requires the construction of judicial defense. Aristocracy limits the self-defense of non and semi-peers to the scale merited by the agent’s respective scope of action and thus property. Thusly, just an agent moves from: 

    slave > serf >freeman > burgher > vassal > sovereign

    …he is permitted to engage in self-defense from: 

    none > body > body & parcel (home)> body & productive capital > 
body & territorial capital (fiefdom) > body & polity.

    And as we decrease in scale, legal decidability is provided by the proportional immediacy of the risk/treat/cost posed to body & property. Extending beyond one’s permission to defend property in a manner proportional to scale is met with (judicial) retaliation. So those granted limited self-defense, by permission of the sovereign, must do so under the conditions deemed appropriate by the sovereign. And since retaliation-cycles decrease the value of the sovereigns holdings, the sovereign has an incentive to suppress the cost imposed on his holdings by requiring that disputes be settled by jurors (peers) & judge.

  • Scale of Demonstrated and Permitted Agency

    by Ferdinand Pisaro 

    Scale of Demonstrated [& Permitted] Agency*
|———————------------—>|(+)
(5).(4).(3).(2).(1).(0)
... ... ... ... ... (0) Sovereign (Aristocracy)(Peerage)
... ... ... ... (1) Vassal (Nobility)
... ... ... (2) Tradesman (Burgher) 
... ... (3) Craftsman (Freeman) 
... (4) Laborer (Serf)
(5) Dependent (Slave)

    *With an increase in agency (demonstrated by the scale that an agent can act in) an agent rises through the spectrum of classes. And as an agent gains status the scope of his action increases because he has demonstrated to his peers that he posses the agency to act at his respective scale without producing negative externalities.SELF-DEFENSE Retaliation against impositions upon that in which an agent has invested (paid a cost). As an agent rises in the spectrum of demonstrated-agency, the portfolio of his property increases, and so to the permitted defense he can field. The cost of Peerage/Sovereignty is paid by a deposit of violence and the granting of reciprocal insurance against impositions of cost upon property-en-toto. Complete-Peerage requires perfect reciprocity, including the requirement for symmetrical information. Thus dispute-resolution between peers requires warrantied, truthful testimony—that is, decidability in dispute resolution amongst peers requires the construction of judicial defense. Aristocracy limits the self-defense of non and semi-peers to the scale merited by the agent’s respective scope of action and thus property. Thusly, just an agent moves from: 

    slave > serf >freeman > burgher > vassal > sovereign

    …he is permitted to engage in self-defense from: 

    none > body > body & parcel (home)> body & productive capital > 
body & territorial capital (fiefdom) > body & polity.

    And as we decrease in scale, legal decidability is provided by the proportional immediacy of the risk/treat/cost posed to body & property. Extending beyond one’s permission to defend property in a manner proportional to scale is met with (judicial) retaliation. So those granted limited self-defense, by permission of the sovereign, must do so under the conditions deemed appropriate by the sovereign. And since retaliation-cycles decrease the value of the sovereigns holdings, the sovereign has an incentive to suppress the cost imposed on his holdings by requiring that disputes be settled by jurors (peers) & judge.