Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Postmodernism is Pointless, Viscious and Destructive

    (Guest post by Michael Phillip)

    Postmodernism (Pomo) is an intellectual blight, and a moral one. For, as Norman Geras has pointed out, if there is no truth, there is no justice. If there is no truth, there is also no heritage. Creating, in reaction to progressivist post-modernism, PoMo conservatives who are so unaware of the heritage they are supposed to be preserving that they actively undermine it. PoMo conservatism is another manifestation of the destructive intellectual and moral emptiness postmodernism’s attack on truth creates. A conservatism that is not founded in some strong sense of truth, heritage and consequence—but is mere attitude—is not merely pointless, it is vicious and destructive.

  • The Dimensions of a Diagram

    Guest post by Michael Phillip

    The liberal right are attracted to order and plurality (e.g. F. A. Hayek), the anti-liberal Right are attracted to order and unity (e.g. Auguste Comte), the liberal Left to turbulence and plurality (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and the anti-liberal Left to turbulence and unity (e.g. Karl Marx).

  • The Dimensions of a Diagram

    Guest post by Michael Phillip

    The liberal right are attracted to order and plurality (e.g. F. A. Hayek), the anti-liberal Right are attracted to order and unity (e.g. Auguste Comte), the liberal Left to turbulence and plurality (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and the anti-liberal Left to turbulence and unity (e.g. Karl Marx).

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • Propertarianism vs Neo-Reaction

    (draft)
    [I] tend to see Propertarianism as Post-Neo-Reactionary. Although, it may be more accurate to position NRx as a rationalist program in the continental and moral traditional, and Propertarianism as an analytic program in the anglo scientific tradition – but both making the same criticism: the evolution of the cathedral, the failure of the enlightenment program, and the necessity to return to modernity (science) and away from postmodernism (pseudoscience, cosmopolitanism and neo-puritanism).

    The most important difference is that Propertarianism is not so much reactionary as it is revolutionary. In that literally I am working on a program to cause and justify a revolution. However, I don’t recommend a return to the past at all, but an evolution of the classical liberal model of government that serves the wants and needs of post-industrial individuals, families (or lack of), societies, economies.

    Propertarianism—-NeoReaction
    Scientific————-Rational
    Analytic————–Allegorical
    Solution————-Criticism
    Legal—————–Moral
    Progressive———-Reactionary
    Prescriptive——–Prescriptive
    Institutional———Technical

    Screen-Shot-2014-12-08-at-6.01.22-AM

  • Propertarianism vs Neo-Reaction

    (draft)
    [I] tend to see Propertarianism as Post-Neo-Reactionary. Although, it may be more accurate to position NRx as a rationalist program in the continental and moral traditional, and Propertarianism as an analytic program in the anglo scientific tradition – but both making the same criticism: the evolution of the cathedral, the failure of the enlightenment program, and the necessity to return to modernity (science) and away from postmodernism (pseudoscience, cosmopolitanism and neo-puritanism).

    The most important difference is that Propertarianism is not so much reactionary as it is revolutionary. In that literally I am working on a program to cause and justify a revolution. However, I don’t recommend a return to the past at all, but an evolution of the classical liberal model of government that serves the wants and needs of post-industrial individuals, families (or lack of), societies, economies.

    Propertarianism—-NeoReaction
    Scientific————-Rational
    Analytic————–Allegorical
    Solution————-Criticism
    Legal—————–Moral
    Progressive———-Reactionary
    Prescriptive——–Prescriptive
    Institutional———Technical

    Screen-Shot-2014-12-08-at-6.01.22-AM

  • Libertine “Self Ownership” is Suitable for Children’s Stories

    [U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.

    As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.

    So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.

    But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
    Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.

    Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
    The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.

    Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.

    Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.

    Everything else is nonsense-words.

    Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Libertine “Self Ownership” is Suitable for Children’s Stories

    [U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.

    As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.

    So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.

    But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
    Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.

    Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
    The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.

    Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.

    Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.

    Everything else is nonsense-words.

    Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Legal Prohibitions on Free Riding Must Expand With Minimum Friction

    [E]ntrepreneurs innovate. Property is necessary for calculation and incentives. Trust is necessary for economic velocity (rates). As complexity expands so does the means of free riding and theft, so legal prohibitions must expand in criminal, ethical, moral, conspiratorial coverage at a marginally indifferent rate from the complexity of associations in order to maintain trust and economic velocity.


    This state of affairs is only possible in homogenous polities.