Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law

    Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes:

    (a) multi-ethnicity (genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.

  • And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law

    And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/and-ending-leftism-is-a-matter-of-ending-parasitism-by-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:44:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265715396084039680

  • And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law.

    Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes: (a) multi-ethnicity(genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.

  • And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law.

    Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes: (a) multi-ethnicity(genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.

  • The Three Methods of Coercion

    The Three Methods of Coercion https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-three-methods-of-coercion/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:53:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265702766921625601

  • The Three Methods of Coercion

    Oct 10, 2019, 9:06 AM 1 – Force (masculine) – By Law or Military 2 – Payment (libertarian) – By Trade – or Payment 3 – Undermining (feminine) – By Gossip or Religion That’s what you’ve got to work with. That’s it.

    1. The Russians and Chinese use force: Command
    2. The West uses Libertarian: sovereignty and reciprocity
    3. The Semites use undermining: Priesthoods

  • The Three Methods of Coercion

    Oct 10, 2019, 9:06 AM 1 – Force (masculine) – By Law or Military 2 – Payment (libertarian) – By Trade – or Payment 3 – Undermining (feminine) – By Gossip or Religion That’s what you’ve got to work with. That’s it.

    1. The Russians and Chinese use force: Command
    2. The West uses Libertarian: sovereignty and reciprocity
    3. The Semites use undermining: Priesthoods

  • No More Ancap Lies

    Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,

    a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.

  • No More Ancap Lies

    Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,

    a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.

  • Q: “… Unions?”

    Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.