Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • THE PURPOSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE – AND THE FUTURE IS THE END OF THE EMPIRE.

    THE PURPOSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE – AND THE FUTURE IS THE END OF THE EMPIRE.

    The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent immigrant and import/export cities that live in relative luxury at low cost of commons and opportunity, from imposing costs upon those lacking those luxuries in material, normative, and institutional means.

    There are six large immigrant cities in America and these six cities benefit largely from the sale of the conquered continent to immigrants – and nothing more.

    If not for the electoral college, those six cities would dictate to the continent, despite the fact that the majority of the continent does not possess those luxuries.

    The only moral solution is to end the international and continental empire so that each group can preserve its preferred norms and institutions. So that each of us possesses our right to self-determination.

    conversely, if you deny others their right to self-determination, then you are in fact, conducting war against others.

    The only solution is secession and devolution.

    And that is what will happen. As strange as it might seem today.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-15 08:19:00 UTC

  • Definitions of Relations

    EMPLOYEE Responsible for own provision of room and board and care from the product of one’s wages.

    FARMER Holds sufficient land and labor to produce goods not only for consumption but for sale in the market, as personal property. PEASANT Holds a small plot of land farmed by the family, for family consumption, as family property (this is an important distinction) – one does not have control over the property – the family does.. SERF Holds access to a portion of land for family in exchange for a combination of labor on the manor’s holdings, in addition to some percentage of his personal production. And is bound to the land, having little or no right of exit except under certain conditions. INDENTURED SERVITUDE Receives room and board, and possible small spending money, in exchange for labor. But loses right of exit. SLAVE Bound to the land, manor, and or family, providing room board and clothing, but holds no title or rent, and no discretion. slavery as we understand it is an historical fabrication. one could be everything from the equivalent of a full-time household employee treated as a cherished member of the family, to a farm hand, to a disposable laborer, to a prisoner with no chance of survival working in the mines. PRISONER (SLAVE) terrible conditions which you might not be expected to survive, under hard labor, as a form of punishment.

  • Definitions of Relations

    EMPLOYEE Responsible for own provision of room and board and care from the product of one’s wages.

    FARMER Holds sufficient land and labor to produce goods not only for consumption but for sale in the market, as personal property. PEASANT Holds a small plot of land farmed by the family, for family consumption, as family property (this is an important distinction) – one does not have control over the property – the family does.. SERF Holds access to a portion of land for family in exchange for a combination of labor on the manor’s holdings, in addition to some percentage of his personal production. And is bound to the land, having little or no right of exit except under certain conditions. INDENTURED SERVITUDE Receives room and board, and possible small spending money, in exchange for labor. But loses right of exit. SLAVE Bound to the land, manor, and or family, providing room board and clothing, but holds no title or rent, and no discretion. slavery as we understand it is an historical fabrication. one could be everything from the equivalent of a full-time household employee treated as a cherished member of the family, to a farm hand, to a disposable laborer, to a prisoner with no chance of survival working in the mines. PRISONER (SLAVE) terrible conditions which you might not be expected to survive, under hard labor, as a form of punishment.

  • The Three Orders: Kin, Cult, State

    I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

    (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. We have been at war. We are at war. Time to win the war.

  • The Three Orders: Kin, Cult, State

    I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

    (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. We have been at war. We are at war. Time to win the war.

  • I mean the INCOME of the working classes in the transition to industry will not

    I mean the INCOME of the working classes in the transition to industry will not persist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-14 12:00:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798133424724709381

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797948560671055872

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797948560671055872

  • I LOVE ANN

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-coulter-without-fat-girls-there-would-be-no-protests/OMG. I LOVE ANN

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-14 07:55:00 UTC

  • I am a scientist. More is not better unless each additional individual is in fac

    I am a scientist. More is not better unless each additional individual is in fact better. Lower classes = bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-13 21:04:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797907941588242432

    Reply addressees: @ThisMachin @CatoInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797907589635842048

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ThisMachin

    @curtdoolittle @CatoInstitute Oh, you are one of those “too many people” guys. We need more people, not less.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797907589635842048

  • THE THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state

    THE THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE

    I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents.

    The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

    (1)kin/law,

    (2)cult/religion, or

    (3)state/corporatism;

    depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?

    And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.

    I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.

    If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means.

    We have been at war. We are at war.

    Time to win the war.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-13 16:36:00 UTC

  • “Each party has their own wing of kulaks. Ours are just more interesting.”—Mur

    —“Each party has their own wing of kulaks. Ours are just more interesting.”—Murray Sell

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-13 15:57:00 UTC