Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Clarification of Property, Possession, Rights

    HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGHTS(LAW) It’s probably clearer to label possession as my opinion and property as insured by third parties. I can possess material things, but I can have an interest in far more things. I’m going to try to correct this in my own usage.

    I may hold possessions, but property is a normative construction, and property rights are a legal construction. And I think that is pretty much what the common law says. 14055203_1657252717871094_191951091575001010_n.jpg

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • All Three Political Orientations are Individualistic (Really).

    (By Eli Harman) In truth, all *three* of the principal western political orientations are profoundly and fundamentally individualistic. Leftism is individualism for those with instantaneous time horizons. Food and shelter and medicine and college and debt forgiveness and status and orgasms for ME, right now, regardless of the costs to others or to society or to my future self.

    Libertarianism is individualism for those with intermediate time horizons, who recognize some of the incentives and conditions necessary for engaging in production and exchange: so all of that *through* and *because* of property rights and markets over so many years as may be necessary to organize their production, without regard to the costs to tradition, culture, extended family, (ethnicity) commons or future generations. Rightism is individualism for people with very long time horizons, who recognize the full spectrum of conditions and incentives necessary to engage in production and exchange not just NOW, but for generations to come. So all of that for ME AND MINE, securely, now and for the future, by drawing on the hard won, evolutionary-gleaned wisdom of the past, and maintaining the various commons (things like public decency, good order, and common defense) that give us our competitive advantages over others who do not share our values or have our best interests at heart.

  • All Three Political Orientations are Individualistic (Really).

    (By Eli Harman) In truth, all *three* of the principal western political orientations are profoundly and fundamentally individualistic. Leftism is individualism for those with instantaneous time horizons. Food and shelter and medicine and college and debt forgiveness and status and orgasms for ME, right now, regardless of the costs to others or to society or to my future self.

    Libertarianism is individualism for those with intermediate time horizons, who recognize some of the incentives and conditions necessary for engaging in production and exchange: so all of that *through* and *because* of property rights and markets over so many years as may be necessary to organize their production, without regard to the costs to tradition, culture, extended family, (ethnicity) commons or future generations. Rightism is individualism for people with very long time horizons, who recognize the full spectrum of conditions and incentives necessary to engage in production and exchange not just NOW, but for generations to come. So all of that for ME AND MINE, securely, now and for the future, by drawing on the hard won, evolutionary-gleaned wisdom of the past, and maintaining the various commons (things like public decency, good order, and common defense) that give us our competitive advantages over others who do not share our values or have our best interests at heart.

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • Why We Failed

    WHY WE FAILED. All men are comprehensible. All men are rational within their limits.

    And as rational we choose what is in our interests whether moral or immoral. And we create institutions that increase the cost of the immoral. So that it is rational to choose the moral. The problem of the twentieth century is that we eliminated the normative prohibition on libel, slander, ridicule, shaming, rallying, lying, pseudoscience, and propaganda. And caused the industrialization of profiting from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, rallying, shaming, and deceit. The reason for our failure is visible in retrospect as an inability to switch from traditional and moral justification in societies with relationships at human scale, to warranty of due diligence by thorough criticism of statements pertaining to cause and consequence when relationships exceeded human scale under the industrial revolution. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.