Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Los hombres creamos la violencia

    Los hombres creamos la violencia para crear la soberanía por medios de facto. Otros hombres compraron el discurso de la “libertad” como forma de obtener permisos para ponerla a “un buen uso” en la organización de mercados. Otros hombres obtuvieron la libertad de otros hombres al llevar a cabo guerras, al ejecutar acciones policiales, y al producir bienes y servicios que compiten en los mercados. Afortunadamente para todos los que aspiramos avanzar en nuestros intereses familiares, no hay límites en la demanda de hombres capaces de ejercer su soberanía. Solo que hay pocos hombres capaces de hacerlo. Porque hay pocos hombres capaces de hacer agencia para ello.  

  • El modelo objetivo

    1. Los utópicos: Platón
    2. Los honestos: Aristóteles
    3. Los que evaden la verdad: Sun Tzu
    4. Los mentirosos: Abraham
    5. Los que mienten y además son ignorantes: Mahoma

  • El modelo objetivo

    1. Los utópicos: Platón
    2. Los honestos: Aristóteles
    3. Los que evaden la verdad: Sun Tzu
    4. Los mentirosos: Abraham
    5. Los que mienten y además son ignorantes: Mahoma

  • Definitions: Subjectivity vs Objectivity

    SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can. **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience. Subjectively experienced: – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable) – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable) – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable) – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable) – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable) – no, that’s not believable. (reportable). **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical. Objectively experienced: – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions) – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions) – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions) – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions) – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions) – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions). **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable: – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number. – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions. – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary). **SCIENCE AND THE WEST** The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be. The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good. This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it. What we intuit is often not a good thing. Cheers

  • Definitions: Subjectivity vs Objectivity

    SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can. **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience. Subjectively experienced: – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable) – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable) – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable) – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable) – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable) – no, that’s not believable. (reportable). **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical. Objectively experienced: – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions) – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions) – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions) – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions) – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions) – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions). **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable: – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number. – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions. – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary). **SCIENCE AND THE WEST** The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be. The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good. This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it. What we intuit is often not a good thing. Cheers

  • Superior, Yes. Not First, But Fastest, and Best

    SUPERIOR YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel ages is not that whites were superior to all other races but that whites on the eurasian plain possessed certain geographic advantages that allowed them to avoid developing monolithic civilizations in order to defend against competitors from multiple directions so endemic to warmer climates. The general argument is that X civilization did something or other first. And this will always be true of the irrigated river valley civilizations, because of the caloric savings provided by those river valleys. But as a consequence whites never developed the ‘bads’ that came with monolithic social and political orders, or intellectual orders, or religious orders. So, while whites were individually wealthier, they were institutionally poorer. And as a consequence, whites preserved a professional warrior caste and dependence upon a militia. So because of this constant competition in all walks of life, combined with the ‘testimonial’ epistemology necessary in militia and warrior armies, whites advanced FASTER than the rest in each era. In other words, good farm land but lack of concentration of river floods, left the west with institutional disadvantages and lack of concentration of wealth, and preserved competition between individuals, families, tribes, nations, and later states. The consequence of preserving military epistemology (testimony: objective truth telling) across the land holding polity, and the competing institutions is *rapidity*. Whites calculate change more comfortably and faster than all other social orders, and this is even evident in our very precise (high syntax, low context) languages. And it is this organized chaos we call ‘markets in every aspect of life’ that produces such stressful uncertainty in western civilization, and we export that stress to all other civilizations, as we drag them against their will out of ignorance, superstition, stagnation, poverty, violence, tyranny and disease. So yes. Except for that period around 1000 between the plagues of Justinian and the black plague (Both brought from Asia), whites have been demonstrably superior. Not first. But always best. Are whites inferior?

  • Superior, Yes. Not First, But Fastest, and Best

    SUPERIOR YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel ages is not that whites were superior to all other races but that whites on the eurasian plain possessed certain geographic advantages that allowed them to avoid developing monolithic civilizations in order to defend against competitors from multiple directions so endemic to warmer climates. The general argument is that X civilization did something or other first. And this will always be true of the irrigated river valley civilizations, because of the caloric savings provided by those river valleys. But as a consequence whites never developed the ‘bads’ that came with monolithic social and political orders, or intellectual orders, or religious orders. So, while whites were individually wealthier, they were institutionally poorer. And as a consequence, whites preserved a professional warrior caste and dependence upon a militia. So because of this constant competition in all walks of life, combined with the ‘testimonial’ epistemology necessary in militia and warrior armies, whites advanced FASTER than the rest in each era. In other words, good farm land but lack of concentration of river floods, left the west with institutional disadvantages and lack of concentration of wealth, and preserved competition between individuals, families, tribes, nations, and later states. The consequence of preserving military epistemology (testimony: objective truth telling) across the land holding polity, and the competing institutions is *rapidity*. Whites calculate change more comfortably and faster than all other social orders, and this is even evident in our very precise (high syntax, low context) languages. And it is this organized chaos we call ‘markets in every aspect of life’ that produces such stressful uncertainty in western civilization, and we export that stress to all other civilizations, as we drag them against their will out of ignorance, superstition, stagnation, poverty, violence, tyranny and disease. So yes. Except for that period around 1000 between the plagues of Justinian and the black plague (Both brought from Asia), whites have been demonstrably superior. Not first. But always best. Are whites inferior?

  • Rothbardian Libertarians: Common Property Marxists

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day. If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish. The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes. To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers. Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay. This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism). (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.) Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it. The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment. As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations. Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it. There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

  • Rothbardian Libertarians: Common Property Marxists

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day. If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish. The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes. To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers. Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay. This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism). (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.) Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it. The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment. As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations. Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it. There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)