Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Should Propertarians Be Considered Libertarians? Why Or Why Not?

    ”Propertarian” was originally used in a derogatory sense to refer to the those people for whom all questions of social decidability were reduced to questions of property. Over time this has evolved into an accurate description of the libertarians of various stripes.

    Today we have a branch of political theory (to which I’m one of the major contributors), we specifically call ‘Propertarianism”, where we have used the reduction of all questions of ethics, morality, politics, economics, to questions of property, and as a consequence created a formal grammar of Natural Law – which while wordy and terminologically rigorous is very hard for courts to interpret or legislators to construct dishonestly.

    However, in the process of doing so we discovered that the two branches of libertarianism were irreconcilably opposed.

    1) the first of which we would consider jeffersonian constitutionalism – the attempt to create a written constitution derived from natural law (an inclusive law) – with the retention of the enlightenment demand for the production of commons; And so we use the term “Propertarian” and not libertarian.

    and;

    2) the second of which we would consider the attempt to apply eastern european Jewish law (a separatist law) to natural law absent commons – such that each branch contained an entirely different ethical and moral basis. This group varies between the use of the terms anarcho-capitalism and libertarian.

    So we now separate high trust anglo saxon natural law of the classical liberal period (Anglo common law), from the low trust eastern european law of the borderland period (Ukraine/Russia).

    This same division applies to the term Austrian Economics, which we separate into the Christian Mengerian attempt to bring the calculus to economics, and the Jewish and Misesian attempt to state economics as an axiomatic system – effectively as law.

    We can view the Anglo Empirical, German Rationalist, and Jewish Hermeneutic traditions as conceptual boxes each culture has a very hard time eliminating its dependence upon.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Should-propertarians-be-considered-libertarians-Why-or-why-not

  • Why Do Some Caucasian Men Prefer Asian Women?

    THE CORRECT ANSWER

    While descending from two widely separated waves “generations” that moved out of Africa, Whites have succeeded in significant juvenilization. Asians have succeeded in far greater juvenilization. Asian women are the most juvenilized women on earth. To the point at which they have even gained extended lifespans by delaying the depth of and onset of sexual maturity (compare to central asians, arabs, and sub saharan africans that have NOT engaged in juvenilization.) Secondly, for reasons I am not sure I am confident in addressing, Asians distribute their fat more evenly. And thirdly, Asian IQ is slanted to our educated classes (I suspect it is a narrower distribution because of the juvenilization – and the asian predilection for killing off malcontents in large numbers). So between a ‘more immature look’, more petite look, better weight distribution, and higher average intelligence, the pool of asian women is objectively better than the pool of available white women. Conversely asian women pay a price for mongoloid facial features, and in places like eastern europe where women maintain their weight and walk a great deal, and dress well, asian women lose their advantage.

    That’s just how it is. (I spend an absurd amount of time on mating patterns.)

    That said, it’s largely asian women and white men that account for the increase in American race mixing, since the other numbers are remaining relatively stable. (relatively).

    This is yet another example of the fact that all human behavior can be reduced to some statement analogous to economics.

    Asian women are a better ‘buy’ than white women for average males. White males are often a much better buy than equivalent asian males who have their own decreased market value. Largely because asians seem to require high context culture (which I won’t go into) and whites thrive in low context cultures. (as is evident in our languages). So asian men in asia and here are at a disadvantage.

    cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-Caucasian-men-prefer-Asian-women

  • Do You Feel A Sense Of Relief When You Know You Are Going To Die Soon?

    I’ve been there. Three times. And no. You don’t feel a sense of relief. You do however develop a distinct clarity regarding what is important to you and what not. And you want to do those things and nothing else. When you survive it, you think, very differently about the world, and have far fewer ‘fears’ other than not appreciating every day you have. You could misinterpret this clarity as relief. But you don’t feel relief. You simply relieve yourself of those things that do not matter to you, and worry exclusively about those things that truly do.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-a-sense-of-relief-when-you-know-you-are-going-to-die-soon

  • Dear Lurkers and Newbies

    DEAR LURKERS AND NEWBS I’m really generous with my time. I don’t even care how stupid the question is as long as it’s framed as an honest question. If I don’t answer it one of the other guys will. But you shouldn’t be afraid of asking. Every time we answer a question, we get better at answering questions. And everyone else who is lurking will learn because of your honesty and ‘bravery’. lol

    Just a reminder: I am advocating a very technical solution to the advancement of law that will make it very difficult to use media and propaganda to lie to the electorate – as well as destroying the extraction of profits from our people by means of fiat money and credit. So I am providing a legal improvement to constitutional government that every group of people around the world can make use of if they are willing to. So that said, I do anti-underclass-ism, meaning as far as I can tell the reduction of the population in the evil 80’s (iq) and below is the one uncomfortable truth I recommend. But I am not a racist or even a culture-ist. I care only that all men can transcend into the gods we seek to be. And we can do that if we learn to speak the only language we know god speaks in: the physical laws of the universe, and reciprocity: the natural law of cooperation, and testimonial truth – that thing we call science. Because if we speak nothing but those truths written by the gods, we have then ourselves ready to sit among the gods.

  • Dear Lurkers and Newbies

    DEAR LURKERS AND NEWBS I’m really generous with my time. I don’t even care how stupid the question is as long as it’s framed as an honest question. If I don’t answer it one of the other guys will. But you shouldn’t be afraid of asking. Every time we answer a question, we get better at answering questions. And everyone else who is lurking will learn because of your honesty and ‘bravery’. lol

    Just a reminder: I am advocating a very technical solution to the advancement of law that will make it very difficult to use media and propaganda to lie to the electorate – as well as destroying the extraction of profits from our people by means of fiat money and credit. So I am providing a legal improvement to constitutional government that every group of people around the world can make use of if they are willing to. So that said, I do anti-underclass-ism, meaning as far as I can tell the reduction of the population in the evil 80’s (iq) and below is the one uncomfortable truth I recommend. But I am not a racist or even a culture-ist. I care only that all men can transcend into the gods we seek to be. And we can do that if we learn to speak the only language we know god speaks in: the physical laws of the universe, and reciprocity: the natural law of cooperation, and testimonial truth – that thing we call science. Because if we speak nothing but those truths written by the gods, we have then ourselves ready to sit among the gods.

  • “Are You Acting in Good Faith?”

    FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • “Are You Acting in Good Faith?”

    FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Yes, We Can Restore Western Civilization, and Easily

    YES WE CAN RESTORE WESTERN CIVILIZATION – EASILY —“It appears that a golden bullet would be to reduce the value of [false] advertising, and this ineffectiveness would lead to the media industry being starved of revenue. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?”—- Julian le Roux GREAT QUESTION!!!! YES!

    EASILY: (a) require testimonial truth in all public speech. (b) rescind copyright protection, replacing it with creative commons protection. (you may not profit from it at civic expense, and then neither may anyone else.). This reduces copyright to a trademark and therefore fraud issue rather than a license for unnecessary and perversive rents. Honestly, it’s that simple. We would crush the entertainment, advertising, media, propaganda, public intellectual, political in 120 days. That is all the cash flow that they have to survive with. Even the threat of it would wipe out the industry. As we have seen with book authorship, artistic authorship, and even independent cinema, the creative works would continue to be produced no matter what. There is no reason to subsidize them if by doing so we subsidize the production of critique (propaganda). The impact on civilization – reversing the economic incentives and economic possibility of engaging in the industrialization of lying, would vanish. If intellectuals professors, advertisers and marketers, industry and politicians, media and artists must warranty their works as truthful, then the size, scale, and composition of the information system will return to that which is possible and rewarding: truthful. We have built a civilization funded by lying just as much as we built the internet funded by pornography. WE MADE IT POSSIBLE BY A GRATUITOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW. WE CAN UNMAKE THE POSSIBILITY BUT RESTORING NATURAL LAW. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Yes, We Can Restore Western Civilization, and Easily

    YES WE CAN RESTORE WESTERN CIVILIZATION – EASILY —“It appears that a golden bullet would be to reduce the value of [false] advertising, and this ineffectiveness would lead to the media industry being starved of revenue. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?”—- Julian le Roux GREAT QUESTION!!!! YES!

    EASILY: (a) require testimonial truth in all public speech. (b) rescind copyright protection, replacing it with creative commons protection. (you may not profit from it at civic expense, and then neither may anyone else.). This reduces copyright to a trademark and therefore fraud issue rather than a license for unnecessary and perversive rents. Honestly, it’s that simple. We would crush the entertainment, advertising, media, propaganda, public intellectual, political in 120 days. That is all the cash flow that they have to survive with. Even the threat of it would wipe out the industry. As we have seen with book authorship, artistic authorship, and even independent cinema, the creative works would continue to be produced no matter what. There is no reason to subsidize them if by doing so we subsidize the production of critique (propaganda). The impact on civilization – reversing the economic incentives and economic possibility of engaging in the industrialization of lying, would vanish. If intellectuals professors, advertisers and marketers, industry and politicians, media and artists must warranty their works as truthful, then the size, scale, and composition of the information system will return to that which is possible and rewarding: truthful. We have built a civilization funded by lying just as much as we built the internet funded by pornography. WE MADE IT POSSIBLE BY A GRATUITOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW. WE CAN UNMAKE THE POSSIBILITY BUT RESTORING NATURAL LAW. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Direct Economic (Empirical) Democracy

    DIRECT ECONOMIC (EMPIRICAL) DEMOCRACY When we say democracy we could be referring to the use of votes for very different purposes. We could be using them to select representatives. We could be using them to choose preferred commons.  We could be using them to select preferred behavior. We could be using them to punish impermissible behavior. I see no case at all for representatives in an era of cheap mass communications.  If we are to use representatives at all, they should be chosen by lot for a single year, and held accountable for their actions by rule of law like any other contract maker. As far as I can tell, direct economic democracy either by proportion or by equal share, where one’s votes may NOT be proxied, will produce (a) the most educated and aware population, and (b) the least corrupt government, as long as (c) all statements must be ‘scientifically’ truthful by the terms i’ve defined elsewhere.

    The dominance of single houses independent of classes the dominance of parties, the use of representatives, and the cheapness of lobbying representatives rather than the voters, are all malincentives.