Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Repositioning Economics, Sociology, Philosophy and Law

    [S]o today I have discussed repositioning economics as social science, and social science as pseudoscience. And repositioning philosophy as positive aspirational literature of rationalist priests, and negative critical law, of empirical judges. This mirrors the epistemological method of creative free association to arrive at hypothesis, and criticism to test theories in the hope of discovering laws from that survives. This mirrors the moral method of doing unto others as we would like done unto us(aspirational), and not doing unto others that which we would not want done unto us (critical). Economics is merely the method by which we voluntarily cooperate in order to accumulate and use the knowledge from all individuals across the reproductive spectrum. But it ignores the three roles of Negative force, neutral exchange, Positive advocacy. Ergo: Women’s Dreams, Brother’s Trades, Father’s Limits. Yin(female) and Yang(male) do not balance in static harmony. We move through time in a continuous process of discovery. It is this difference that separated static east from dynamic west. 

    Lover, warrior, judge, King  Queen, teacher, mother, lover.
..............................|
..............................V
................Brother, Partner, Maker, Trader......

    Not bad work to accomplish before lunch. 😉 Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • An Anarcho Capitalist Society In The Long Run… Nope. Impossible/

    —“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

    [L]et’s take a look:

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

  • An Anarcho Capitalist Society In The Long Run… Nope. Impossible/

    —“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

    [L]et’s take a look:

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

  • Our New Church: Lets Frame This Question Of The Church Correctly

    (important)

    [M]yths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.)

    There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins.

    I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism,

    That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series ofEgyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought.

    Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization.

    The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin.

    It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence.

    This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia.

    Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us.

    Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advancedFASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth.


    It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies.


    The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free.
    Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west.


    No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap.


    Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor.


    The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
    ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )

  • Our New Church: Lets Frame This Question Of The Church Correctly

    (important)

    [M]yths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.)

    There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins.

    I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism,

    That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series ofEgyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought.

    Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization.

    The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin.

    It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence.

    This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia.

    Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us.

    Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advancedFASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth.


    It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies.


    The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free.
    Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west.


    No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap.


    Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor.


    The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
    ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )

  • Natural Law, Expanded by Doolittle

    (with updates by Doolittle) [N]atural Law – What is Law? Natural Law Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. Natural Law – The History The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

  • Natural Law, Expanded by Doolittle

    (with updates by Doolittle) [N]atural Law – What is Law? Natural Law Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. Natural Law – The History The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

  • The Rule of Degeneracy…

    [T]he *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

    – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)

  • The Rule of Degeneracy…

    [T]he *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

    – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)

  • Methods of Criticism: Falsehood vs Theft

    [A] RATIONALIST INQUIRES FOR FALSEHOOD, A PROPERTARIAN INQUIRES FOR THEFT.

    In most arguments it is a given that they are false. Instead, seek not to prove the leftists false, but seek to prove them thieves.

    Then respond with, why are you not willing to trade with me? Why must you lie and steal from me?