Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • We Don’t Really Use the Term ‘Free Will’,

    [W]e don’t really use the term ‘Free Will’, because it is an ideal, and so tainted that it’s meaningless. We use the terms Agency (via positiva) and Sovereignty (via negativa) and Reciprocity (via voluntary, productive), and we state operationally what those mean.

  • Position on Arranged Marriages?

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    [N]o, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often. What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age. I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family. via-negativa in all things. There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals. Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades. The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals. The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production. The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown. The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization. Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

  • Position on Arranged Marriages?

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    [N]o, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often. What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age. I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family. via-negativa in all things. There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals. Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades. The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals. The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production. The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown. The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization. Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

  • Evil

    –“I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals”.—Carl Onni

    [Y]ou mean authoritarianism and monopoly rather than as in history, an extended family of various traits relying on various archetypes. It is very easy to convince people that what they do is good. It is very hard to show them that what they deem good is bad. Principally because their intuitions have been trained by deception and ritual, because there was no means of training them by reason and practice. No cult survives falsification by science, and no good of cults cannot be produced by training. There are only two religions that are not evil: stoicism and shintoism, with original buddhism simply a pre-scientific attempt (as in philosophy vs science) to produce an insular stoicism; where stoicism sought to produce a civic discipline.

  • Evil

    –“I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals”.—Carl Onni

    [Y]ou mean authoritarianism and monopoly rather than as in history, an extended family of various traits relying on various archetypes. It is very easy to convince people that what they do is good. It is very hard to show them that what they deem good is bad. Principally because their intuitions have been trained by deception and ritual, because there was no means of training them by reason and practice. No cult survives falsification by science, and no good of cults cannot be produced by training. There are only two religions that are not evil: stoicism and shintoism, with original buddhism simply a pre-scientific attempt (as in philosophy vs science) to produce an insular stoicism; where stoicism sought to produce a civic discipline.

  • Ownership of Our Lines

    [W]e no longer own our children. If we owned our children still, we could influence their marriages. If we owned our government still, we could end alien immigration. We own neither and therefore no longer own self-determination of our line or our kin. As such you ask me to do what I cannot in the circumstance, and I ask you to do what we can do in the circumstance: fight to return our ownership – to create an alternative circumstance. The question is, will you fight? If you will not fight then your words are those of a woman: the ridicule of scolds is evidence of their powerlessness and lack of agency. And you are of no matter other than to be punished for your scolding.

  • Ownership of Our Lines

    [W]e no longer own our children. If we owned our children still, we could influence their marriages. If we owned our government still, we could end alien immigration. We own neither and therefore no longer own self-determination of our line or our kin. As such you ask me to do what I cannot in the circumstance, and I ask you to do what we can do in the circumstance: fight to return our ownership – to create an alternative circumstance. The question is, will you fight? If you will not fight then your words are those of a woman: the ridicule of scolds is evidence of their powerlessness and lack of agency. And you are of no matter other than to be punished for your scolding.

  • Propertarianism: The Central Idea

    September 17th, 2018 10:22 AM PROPERTARIANISM: THE CENTRAL IDEA
    (from the introduction) The central idea is the completion of the scientific method, and its application to the entire spectrum of human knowledge. Although understanding the full scope of what that means isn’t at all obvious from that statement. The completion of the scientific method is contained in Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth (Epistemology). Acquisitionism (Psychology), Propertarianism (sociology), and Natural Law (Ethics, Politics, and Group Competitive Strategy). The rest of the work consists of application of that scientific method to the scope of human knowledge: “Here is the completed scientific method. If we apply the completed scientific method to the full scope of human knowledge, organized by combining categories of philosophy and social science into a single hierarchy, the result is all of these ideas.” The consequence of completing such a reformation of the scope of human knowledge, is our ability to explain not only all of human behavior, but to compare all human civilizations and explain why each excelled (The West), developed (China), fell into stasis (India), or regressed (Islam, Australian aboriginals, and possibly central africans), were conquered (far too many), or Collapsed (Mesoamericans). This reformation is on the same scale of the previous generations of the scientific method: aristotelian reason and stoic psychology of the late ancient world, anglo empiricism of the early modern era, anglo-germanic science of the 19th and 20th centuries, and brings the social soft-sciences from pseudoscientific into the hard sciences. But, given human defense of malinvestment in falsehoods, I suspect these arguments will take as long to propagate through our civlization as did those previous reformations of human knowledge. Whether you consider Propertarianism the Completed Scientific Method, Natural Law (social science), or the codification of the strategy of western civilization, depends upon your interest: intellectual (method), institutional (natural law), or anthropological (the reasons for western rapidity of progress in the ancient and modern worlds.) My original purpose was only to provide a scientific language for describing the group competitive and evolutionary strategy of western civlization. The result is the completion of the scientific method, an explanation for the success of the west, a reformation of human knowledge, and a Constitution of Natural Law by which any and all may live.

  • Mapping Propertarianism to Philosophy and The Sciences

    September 17th, 2018 10:21 AM MAPPING PROPERTARIANISM TO PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES
    (from the introduction) While propertarianism serves as an anti-philosophy system of thought, we rely upon the traditional hierarchy of categories: 

    SOVEREIGNTY:
    
-From Reals to Feels-
    
Metaphysics:..Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)

    Psychology:...Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.

    Sociology:....Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott.

    Ethics:.......Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment.

    Epistemology:.Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality.

    Law:..........Algorithmic Natural Law.  The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity.

    Politics:.....Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism”  with tongue in cheek.)

    Strategy:.....Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism

    Spirituality:.Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism.

    Aesthetics:...Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

  • The First Complete Statement of The Philosophy of Western Civilization

    September 17th, 2018 10:20 AM THE FIRST COMPLETE STATEMENT OF

    THE PHILOSOPHY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
    (from the Introduction) The Heroic Civilization.
    For reasons we are unsure of, the west combined bronze horse and wheel, and in doing so transformed from egalitarian earth worshippers to hierarchical sun worshippers. From submissive to heroic. Sovereignty.
    But because of their military strategy – a strategy that required large personal investments and large personal risk – they chose sovereignty: the right of the individual to act as his own legislature in his family’s affairs, as the first ‘law, rule or principle’ of their society upon which all others were to depend. Markets in Everything.
    The only institutional solution to choosing the strategy of sovereignty is to resort to markets in everything: relationships, marriage, production, commons, adjudication of differences, and rule. And the only means of resolving conflicts between them is the natural, judge discovered common law. In other words the only solution to sovereignty is : the absence of discretion (choice). And the only solution to the absence of choice, is rule of natural, judge-discovered law. The Rapidity of Suppression of Parasitism.
    The by-product of this choice of sovereignty is the rapidity with which new methods of free riding, parasitism, predation, can be suppressed – by the first case adjudicated and recorded. And secondly, the ease of expanding risk taking when such rapidity and lack of discretion is visible. And third, the trust that evolves from the consistent suppression of corruption in the state, and free riding in the commons, and parasitism and fraud in commerce, and predation by any criminal means. Not First but Fastest.
    In summary, the choice of sovereignty allowed the west to advance FASTER than the rest by process of DISCOVERY faster than the rest. So the West was not first, it was fastest, except in the medieval world when (like now) we were defeated by the first great lie: mysticism. Class Structure.
    The west has always practiced tri-partism: the estates of the realm – in one way or another. Since our origins on the steppes of Ukraine and Russia. Priests, Warriors, Laborers. We have always used the class structure ‘honestly’. Testimonial Truth and Deflationism.
    The west has (uniquely) practiced deconflationism (specialization) in various forms – never mixing Law, religion, and festival – and resisting the church’s usurpation of our nature worship and related festivals. We have even had in some cases, different languages for our estates of the realm: Latin, French, and German. Polytheistic (And PolyArgumentative).
    And so the west has always practiced polytheism of sorts: martial sovereignty, commercial rule of law, craftsman’s technology, intellectual philosophy, commoner religion, and the mythology of nature and the hearth. And each has used different forms of communication and different methods of argument. No Single ‘Book’.
    Because of this tripartism, this unconflated set of competing yet compatible ideas produced a very complex unwritten social order never captured in a single book in a single language using a single argument. Possibly because it could not have been until now. We simply didn’t know how. It took us hundreds of years in the ancient world, and hundreds of years in the modern to discover how to complete our single language of truthful speech: that language we call ‘science’ – a language that evolved not from our priesthood, not from our intellectuals, but from our empirical, natural, common law. The Great Lies of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
    Our current century and the last, and part of the previous, were victims of the same strategy that Zoroaster, Jerusalem and Mecca used against us in the ancient world: the first great lie of supernatural mysticism. We have been fighting the second great lie of pseudoscience for over a century. We are now fighting the second version of the first lie: Islam, and Islam has replaced the pseudoscience of marxists: world communism with the fundamentalist, absolutist, mysticism of religion.