Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Propertarianism for the Practical

    By William Butchman —“My chief interest in Propertarianism is practical. I want to know the truth so that I can use it to help my people. I am not interested in the truth outside of my genetic self interest. I am not a good man attempting to do good in the universe. I am a selfish man who selfishly loves his people. In exactly the same way I would use any new weaponry to defeat our enemies, I will use Propertarianism to defeat them. I don’t want our people to be the Good Guys. I want our people to rule. I seek nothing more than our Sovereignty over every domain that we can master.”—

  • Overview of Propertarianism’s Main Themes

    OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM’S MAIN THEMES Quick Note Turned into a Post. If you watch (1) the intertemporal division of perception, (2) the intercultural division of perception (circumpolar people), and (3) listen to this podcast (civilizational strategies); And if you catch that consistently across the personal, interpersonal, national, and civilizational strategies, that I CONSISTENTLY try to draw your attention to the three possible means of governance (coercion): religion/gossp/ostracization, trade/remuneration, and law/order/violence, you will begin to see the pattern that I work with that is VERY DIFFERENT from the idealism of ‘equality’ or even near equality. And if you then grasp that all human intuition, mind, emotion, reason, exists for the simple purpose of acquisition. And our intuitions vary only be reproductive strategy(gender) and our desirability(class). And that our emotional reward system is nothing more than evidence of changes in the state of property. And that we act to acquire property in toto. And that we negotiate for acquiring what we desire to fulfill our strategy. And that we signal by a thousand means in order to improve our negotiating position. And if you are enough of a philosopher to grasp that I divide categories of argument into the equivalent of increasingly articulate mathematical disciplines. (see my hierarchies of argument) – and we use them to honestly, dishonestly, wishfully, foolishly, and rarely truthfully, use them to negotiate with one another. And if you then you bring in the various dimensions by which I ask we test propositions (testimonialism’s six dimensional tests of due diligence necessary for warranty of propositions), And that the only way we make use of information across all our perceptions, is when we cooperate (Trade) voluntarily. And then that we can ‘calculate’ together fastest, most competitively, if we make use of (1)natural, judge-discovered, common law, jury, (2) a market for reproduction (marriage and family), (3) a market for the production of good and services in support of the market for reproduction, (4) and a market for the production of commons. And that we have domesticated mankind through incremental suppression of parasitism thereby enforcing production. And that we have only now to expand our suppression of parasitism to counter the development of media, so that we prevent propaganda and deceit in every walk of life. Then you have social science as I describe it in Propertarianism. (Natural Law), and the solutions to the majority of current problems. Stop lying, stop parasitism, and stop involuntary association, and that’s what it takes. My next series of thought will be criticisms of the attempt to preserve the monopoly of territory on the continent by the federal government. And I will continue to work on religion while I do that.

  • Overview of Propertarianism’s Main Themes

    OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM’S MAIN THEMES Quick Note Turned into a Post. If you watch (1) the intertemporal division of perception, (2) the intercultural division of perception (circumpolar people), and (3) listen to this podcast (civilizational strategies); And if you catch that consistently across the personal, interpersonal, national, and civilizational strategies, that I CONSISTENTLY try to draw your attention to the three possible means of governance (coercion): religion/gossp/ostracization, trade/remuneration, and law/order/violence, you will begin to see the pattern that I work with that is VERY DIFFERENT from the idealism of ‘equality’ or even near equality. And if you then grasp that all human intuition, mind, emotion, reason, exists for the simple purpose of acquisition. And our intuitions vary only be reproductive strategy(gender) and our desirability(class). And that our emotional reward system is nothing more than evidence of changes in the state of property. And that we act to acquire property in toto. And that we negotiate for acquiring what we desire to fulfill our strategy. And that we signal by a thousand means in order to improve our negotiating position. And if you are enough of a philosopher to grasp that I divide categories of argument into the equivalent of increasingly articulate mathematical disciplines. (see my hierarchies of argument) – and we use them to honestly, dishonestly, wishfully, foolishly, and rarely truthfully, use them to negotiate with one another. And if you then you bring in the various dimensions by which I ask we test propositions (testimonialism’s six dimensional tests of due diligence necessary for warranty of propositions), And that the only way we make use of information across all our perceptions, is when we cooperate (Trade) voluntarily. And then that we can ‘calculate’ together fastest, most competitively, if we make use of (1)natural, judge-discovered, common law, jury, (2) a market for reproduction (marriage and family), (3) a market for the production of good and services in support of the market for reproduction, (4) and a market for the production of commons. And that we have domesticated mankind through incremental suppression of parasitism thereby enforcing production. And that we have only now to expand our suppression of parasitism to counter the development of media, so that we prevent propaganda and deceit in every walk of life. Then you have social science as I describe it in Propertarianism. (Natural Law), and the solutions to the majority of current problems. Stop lying, stop parasitism, and stop involuntary association, and that’s what it takes. My next series of thought will be criticisms of the attempt to preserve the monopoly of territory on the continent by the federal government. And I will continue to work on religion while I do that.

  • Spectrum: Signals of Belief Claims

    THE SPECTRUM OF SIGNALS OF BELIEF CLAIMS. We’ve been discussing this in my corner of the universe, and I tend to work with the following terminological sequence: Faith = recognition that you’re position is indefensible, but you report that you hold some position. Belief = a ‘signal’ in the report that you might decide in favor of the position were it of no cost to you, but that you aren’t accountable for the truth or falsehood of it. Know = that you are not signaling, but with present knowledge, will defend your claim that you will decide in favor of the position, even if it costs you minor reputation for defending it. Promise = that you are willing to commit status and reputation to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Warranty = that you are willing to commit materially to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Demonstrate = that you have chosen in favor of the position. We have a lot of evidence that says this hierarchy of costs reflects the ‘put’ that an individual is making on the proposition at hand. TYING TO EARLIER POST ON THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY as reducible to word games that attempt to escape accountability. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154464857972264 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Spectrum: Signals of Belief Claims

    THE SPECTRUM OF SIGNALS OF BELIEF CLAIMS. We’ve been discussing this in my corner of the universe, and I tend to work with the following terminological sequence: Faith = recognition that you’re position is indefensible, but you report that you hold some position. Belief = a ‘signal’ in the report that you might decide in favor of the position were it of no cost to you, but that you aren’t accountable for the truth or falsehood of it. Know = that you are not signaling, but with present knowledge, will defend your claim that you will decide in favor of the position, even if it costs you minor reputation for defending it. Promise = that you are willing to commit status and reputation to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Warranty = that you are willing to commit materially to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Demonstrate = that you have chosen in favor of the position. We have a lot of evidence that says this hierarchy of costs reflects the ‘put’ that an individual is making on the proposition at hand. TYING TO EARLIER POST ON THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY as reducible to word games that attempt to escape accountability. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154464857972264 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Yes. We Domesticated Ourselves. We’re Just Another Animal.

    IT”S NOT LIKE I”M GONNA WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST FOR THIS LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH. You know, it’s not like if I walk around telling people ‘Well, we learned how to herd females, and domesticate one another so that we could cooperate more effectively, and that there isn’t any difference between now and then other than the complexity of the methods we use because rather than just genders and alphas we have entire classes and generations. We didn’t have to invent domestication of other animals. We’re the first animals we domesticated.

    So (a) that all our cognitive differences are just a division of perception (b) our differences in perception and value are just reflections of reproductive strategy (c) we herded women and had to, and domesticated ourselves then the rest of the world (d) the only question is whether we continue domestication (eugenics) or we revert to animals (dysgenics). The west invented the most profitable and fastest way of domesticating human beings: markets in everything (empirical civilization – meaning meritocracy), and cull the herd with winters, starvation, pestilence, war, and aggressive hanging of malcontents. Yeah. Well, you know the optimum is a market society where we just limit the unproductive to one child. Eventually, this takes care of itself. And I think that’s the compromise that’s just as … necessary… as the institution of monogamous marriage, and rule of law. No one wants to be forced into marriage no one wants to be forced to limit herself to a single child, no one wants to be forced to contribute to the maintenance of defense, and no one wants to be prosecuted by the law for the imposition of costs upon others. It’s not a matter of want. Sigh.

  • Yes. We Domesticated Ourselves. We’re Just Another Animal.

    IT”S NOT LIKE I”M GONNA WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST FOR THIS LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH. You know, it’s not like if I walk around telling people ‘Well, we learned how to herd females, and domesticate one another so that we could cooperate more effectively, and that there isn’t any difference between now and then other than the complexity of the methods we use because rather than just genders and alphas we have entire classes and generations. We didn’t have to invent domestication of other animals. We’re the first animals we domesticated.

    So (a) that all our cognitive differences are just a division of perception (b) our differences in perception and value are just reflections of reproductive strategy (c) we herded women and had to, and domesticated ourselves then the rest of the world (d) the only question is whether we continue domestication (eugenics) or we revert to animals (dysgenics). The west invented the most profitable and fastest way of domesticating human beings: markets in everything (empirical civilization – meaning meritocracy), and cull the herd with winters, starvation, pestilence, war, and aggressive hanging of malcontents. Yeah. Well, you know the optimum is a market society where we just limit the unproductive to one child. Eventually, this takes care of itself. And I think that’s the compromise that’s just as … necessary… as the institution of monogamous marriage, and rule of law. No one wants to be forced into marriage no one wants to be forced to limit herself to a single child, no one wants to be forced to contribute to the maintenance of defense, and no one wants to be prosecuted by the law for the imposition of costs upon others. It’s not a matter of want. Sigh.

  • Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments

    USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”

  • Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments

    USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”

  • State Healthcare is Not A Problem Unless It’s A Monopoly

    Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.