Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550783269 Timestamp) —“The difference between repressing a thought and dismissing It is the level of confidence in your own agency”—Gunther Traffinstead well done.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550775965 Timestamp) GO GET YOUR OWN LEADER OR BECOME ONE YOURSELF. Let me help you. I don’t want to ‘lead’. Especially losers. I want to provide a solution. I want to arm people with possibility. I want leadership to emerge by attracting talent to the solution. I want our people to win. And it won’t be ANYONE on the alt right that emerges. OK? NO ONE. NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. Getting alt-righters what they want as working class men and leading the alt right are contradictory propositions. I’m in it for the little guy. They guy with a job, a family, and who is being fked by the Cathedral complex. And for our people’s persistence. I don’t need to be inspiring. I don’t seek to be. I need to manufacture a weapon that will work. And I need people to not cause damage to that weapon through stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, and signaling. And I’ve led most of my life thanks. The only reason I end up leading is if everyone better than I am fails. So stop trying to make me a cult leader, OR insult me for NOT being a cult leader. Because you do both. Which is ironic. I am either not a cult leader and therefore not good, or a cult leader and therefore bad. When the fact is I am an educator and solution provider, and that is all. What you mean is, you want me to carry your water. Because you can’t. I’ve done the engineering. You need to do the work. But your bullshit just hurts you. Not me. I can’t lose. The worst that happens to me is I produce a Tome that will bear my name for years, while I enjoy what remains of my life. The worst that happens to you is exactly what you fear. -cheers

  • Property Defined – for The 1000Th Time

    PROPERTY – FOR THE 1000TH TIME February 21st, 2019 4:06 PM (Not going to repeat every single refutation here. If you encounter one where you think you ‘got me’ it won’t happen. sorry. Just ask how we handle it.) ; DEMAND FOR POSSESSION, PROPERTY, PROPERTY RIGHTS. 1) Cooperation provides disproportionate returns necessary for survival 2) Division of labor multiplies disproportionate returns on cooperation. 3) Reciprocity incentivizes cooperation. Cheating disincentivizes cooperation. 4) Humans engage in both retaliation, and altruistic (costly) punishment of cheaters in order to preserve the disproportionate returns on cooperation and cooperation at scale. 5) Morality consists of reciprocity within the local limits of proportionality. Man is amoral and acts in hist interests it is just nearly always in his better long term interests to act morally. 6) Law evolved to prevent retaliation cycles, to standardize means of conflict resolution, to maintain maximum returns for the majority of the polity, and to increase the revenues of taxing authorities. 7) Law uses a single measure: demonstrated investment which we call interests or ‘property’ to resolve conflicts and preserve the peace (returns on cooperation), and a single test: reciprocity. Ths law is called ‘tort’ or ‘natural law’. 8) Law evolves through the continuous evolutionary suppression of violations of reciprocity, through the continuous discovery of findings of law. It is a purely empirical process. 9) All social science can be expressed in terms of identification, acquisition, transformation, transfer, consumption, and loss of interests in property. 10) All human cognition can be expressed as reward system responses to that same identification, acquisition, transformation, transfer, consumption, and loss of interests in property. THEREFORE; Ergo PROPERTARIANISM consist of a universal language of linguistic, psychological, and social sciences that makes use of a standard of measure we commonly call property. WHEREAS; “Property” refers to: 1) MEASUREMENT: A category of measurements, within that category we call weights and measures, that provides commensurability and therefore decidability, over the use of all possible human interests, in matters of conflict over those interests, where those interests satisfy any demonstrated human demand. AND WHERE; Property consists in that series: 1) POSSESSION(IN FACT): That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use. 2) PROPERTY(NORMATIVE: That which you and I agree not to use or consume from one another. 3) PROPERTY RIGHTS(INSURED): that which a third party will insure we do not use or consume from one another. AND WHERE; Rights include no less than: 1) Constituo – “ Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation. 2) Transitus – “ Transit: passage through 3d space. 3) Usus -“ Use: setting up a stall. 4) Fructus – “ Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits) 5) Mancipio – “ Emancipation: (sale, transfer) 6) Abusus – “ Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo. AND WHERE; Property includes any INTEREST we observe by: 1) DEFENSE: Men are willing to defend with violence 2) INVESTMENT: Have a demonstrable investment in 3) NON-IMPOSITION: Acquired that investment without imposing a cost on others. (via john Zebley) WHERE Interests are demonstrated by: EITHER … 0) Origination (Homesteading, “Constituo”) OR … 1) Productive (no blackmail etc) … 2) Fully informed (no asymmetric knowledge) … 3) Warrantied (responsible fo asymmetric knowledge) … 4) Voluntary transfer (non coercive) AND IN BOTH CASES, WHERE … 5) Such action is free of violation of the same by externality. (unharmful) AND WHERE; Man demonstrates interest and defends the following categories of his means of production: 1) MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF EXISTENCE Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.” – Physical Body – Actions and Time – Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands. – Knowledge ties (skills, crafts) – Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over. AND; 2) MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF REPRODUCTION Means of Reproduction: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.” – Mates (access to sex/reproduction) – Children (genetic reproduction) – Familial Relations (security) – Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties) – Racial property (racial ties) – Status and Class (reputation) AND; 3). MEANS OF PRIVATE PRODUCTION Relational Property – Non-Familial Relations (utility) – Organizational ties (work) Cooperative Property – Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership) Artificial Property – Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of limited monopoly within a geography) – Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography). AND; 4). MEANS OF COMMONS PRODUCTION (Community) Property

    • Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”
    • Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    • Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    • Territory and attendant resources.

    —-END—

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1550774751 Timestamp) POSTED ON HOWE’S SITE Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant and Lazy, (c) Intellectually Dishonest, or (d) All of The Above. Compare his definitions of propertarianism, of property, of operationalism, of the means of decidability (testimonialism) and claims made, with posts that are three or more years old. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157002703142264 Even worse, his confusion of justificationism (norm, philosophy, religion), with falsificationism (math, science, law) and that P constitutes an instance of law (decidability in matters of conflict) not justification (suggested or consensual behavior) or that he cannot seem to comprehend the difference between theory (search for opportunities) and recipes-actions (operational transformations) – say the theory of smelting vs the means of smelting different metals under different conditions. Or that the purpose of P is force the speaker to demonstrate he has the knowledge that he makes a truth claim in matters of conflict. Or that the Operationalist/Operational/intuitionistic/Praxeological movement resulted in current scientific prose. Or that Eprime is only used to formally criticize operational speech not ‘speak in it’ – in the same way formal logic is only used to formally criticize set statements. I mean… Howe’s criticism is one stupid ignorant lazy arrogant presumptuous statement after another. Ask yourself if it was even vaguely possible to make the above podcast if you had even taken a cursory read of the material, and even a trivial understanding of it. Especially given that we tend to make definitions in series and he doesn’t use a single one. I mean, would you misrepresent the definition of P if it’s on the home page of the site? Would you misrepresent the definition of property and it’s means of construction? Would you misrepresent the operational and ePrime movements by criticism of the personalities of the time, or whether they performed as claimed? I mean, would you? Does the OED contain false definitions because they were written by a man, insane, and in an asylum? Then ask yourself that given that little understanding, that much straw manning, the claim that it’s not personal compared to the gossiping he does at the end whether. And you’ve called my wife, who I met on my second day in Ukraine, a whore and me a sex tourist. And this is because the last time you came after me I did a pretty thorough destruction of apriorism – not that I had to since it’s pretty common knowledge among the educated (even someone like Rand) that this kantian nonsense was just an attempt at secular preservation of authority of the church and state. Yes we are getting popular. In our popularity we are leaving behind people with malinvestments in failed intellectual, economic, and political movements. We might fail in our mission. That said WASTING MY TIME and POLLUTING THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS with stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest pretense does nothing to advance anything except a polluted commons, and to prohibit good people with good intentions, seeking a POSSIBLE solution to the problem of leftist usurpation of propaganda from paying the rather high cost of investing in learning how to do so. Which is precisely what P is designed to do. Dishonest, lazy ignorant, stupid, self interested shills. The world needs fewer of you. You’re just as cancerous to our people as the leftists.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550780740 Timestamp) THE TRADE WITH XIANITY 1 – Look. I have an agreement ‘with management’ to stop harshing on Xianity now that my tests are done. You have really good people on the christian side. I recommend a lot of them. James fox Higgins and Vox Day among the obvious. Distributist is good at what he does too. … 2 – … so given that we are speaking in different grammars, me in via negativa science and law of dispute resolution, and you are speaking in via positiva of theology of organization, it’s not possible to discourse. 3 – So, if you want your faith I’ll fight for it if you fight for my law.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550771897 Timestamp) How much of this bs would disappear if we returned to judicial duelling? That’s why I want to return to judicial duelling.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550780348 Timestamp) PRODUCING LEADERS NOT LEADING by Tim Kay To those who don’t get it: Curt’s a leader-producer, not a leader. Which is more crucial but just not the same role. Leaders are those best able to make use of the intellectual weaponry he develops in their respective niches. They emerge from the slush pile that is the audience. It seems to me that there is a core of Propertarian judges (those capable of continuing Curt’s work at his level) who are currently in development, and then a core of leaders (those who can propagate and mobilise), with some overlap between the two. It would be incorrect to ask Curt to be the leader because … THE RIGHT ISN”T A MONOLITH. … Leaders must be discovered in order to fit the demands of the various groups (and their grammars). An important consideration is the long-term viability of the work. As such making it about Curt would defeat the purpose; seeding a sufficiently distributed group of leaders is essential. To those who are looking for a leader, I would suggest nominating your existing de facto leader to get on board with Propertarianism and so fill one of the niches, or, to keep an eye on the talent produced by the project.


    ( from CURTD: Let me repeat this because it’s the core of it: —“Leaders must be discovered in order to fit the demands of the various groups (and their grammars). “— I produce political weaponry. One of the weapons is leaders. I am not nor do I want to be a leader. We must act as one, not be led by one. Honestly I’m absolutely floored someone made this argument (grammars) instead of me because it is evidence of how far we have come in PRODUCING thought leadership. ).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550769664 Timestamp) REGARDING HOWE’S “DEBUNKING OF P” IN PLAIN SIGHT OVERVIEW https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ SIMPLE VERSION FOR LIBERTARIANS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/10/28/propertarianism-for-for-libertarians/ SHORTCUTS –Testimonialism (2015)– https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/ –Due Diligence (2015)– https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/ –Propertarianism (2015)– https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ –Propertarian Reasoning (2015) — https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ –Operationalism– Operationalism in historical context.
    https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/05/01/economic-intuitionism-or-scientific-praxeology/ –Natural Law– https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/29/a-short-course-in-natural-law/ HERE IS WHAT IT APPEARS HOWE DID Asked a bunch of people to tell them verbal nonsense, or watched john mark’s videos, and didn’t actually do any research on the ~7000 posts i’ve written. Petty stupid nonsense. Made a hit piece in ignorance. I mean, is he stupid? Lazy and Ignorant? Fearful and Dishonest? All of the above? PROPERTARIANISM IS AN IQ TEST. If you can’t do it…. then you can’t do it. I mean. P is articulated well enough in the Overview for someone with education in economics and the philosophy of science to understand. —SO— Do I really answer this absurd ignorant straw man of Howe’s? Really, this guy doesn’t look up a definition of anything, he just makes shit up? Or goes by what someone tells him? I mean, I mean how much straw for this much straw manning. So far wrong on operationalism, wrong on ePrime, wrong on property, I mean this is… laughable…. I mean. It’s intellectually embarrassing. How can you invest this much time without just going thru the overview. Ok. So. This guy….

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550851396 Timestamp) OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so. But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law. I did my job. But please stop wasting my time. I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed. Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550930164 Timestamp) CONTINUOUS DEMONSTRATION OF THE LIE. —“You claim to have a monopoly on truth. The only honest position here is to admit there is no monopoly on truth.”—Noel Fritsch I don’t claim to have a monopoly on truth. I claim only that I can identify false speech, and that you’re lying. Period. Like you just did again – by false equivalence. And by doing so you demonstrate my point: christians are the vehicle for the propagation of the abrahamic means of lying. Like you just did. (I mean. you don’t get it. The game is up. The goyim know. and it will take a year but I will popularize this criticism of christians as the enemy of our people just as I have popularized other arguments. And all you can do is provide me with a continuous stream of evidence that I am correct.)