Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Democracy Is the Slow Road to Communism

    Feb 7, 2020, 10:07 AM

    —“Universal suffrage will eventually cause universal suffering.”—Clifton Knox

    (Democracy is the slow road to communism. -hoppe)

    –“I am in favor of earned cumulative meritocratic suffrage based on demonstrated generational loyalty (military, political, social, legal, intellectual/scientific, economic, artistic)), investment in the commons, level of leadership, Territorial acquisition and settlement, establishment, leadership and defense of core instituons etc. Patriotic American families with deep roots and demonstrated excellence over the generations in building up our country and nation will have accumulated the most voting rights (no more one man one vote). (Houses are a better solution) Recent immigrants whose ancestors have contributed nothing or even taken from the country by drawing down welfare or voting irreciprocally will have no franchise rights. Each generation is accounted for. This system restores power to the WASP families that founded and built America and disempowers our enemies and rivals for power. It is also just.”—Scott De Warren

  • Answer to Today’s Question

    Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas

    –“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–

    Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.

    CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.

  • Answer to Today’s Question

    Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas

    –“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–

    Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.

    CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.

  • The Cost of Non European Civilizations to Themselves

    Feb 11, 2020, 7:32 AM

    —“Do you think being a european or not can be measured by the volume of the hazards of the externalities a person causes while coercing/persuading one’s self? And how the community constantly arranges to insure the externalities and and cover the damages?”— Mea Culba

    Non european communities seek to minimize stress of adaptation through relative equality and harmony – producing relative stasis – rather than adaptive competitive excellence – producing relative evolution, and the continuous distribution of the benefits of innovation and adaptation. Well, that’s the inverse of saying european civilization’s realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, identity, logic, rational choice, reciprocity, together that constrain our logics, sciences and laws, collected in the physical laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the laws of testimonial thought and speech, place the highest burden on our conscientiousness and reason in exchange for eliminating frictions personal interpersonal political and external, and therefore the least frictions of innovation adaptation and evolution. We (europeans) evolve the fastest because we minimize the personal, interpersonal, social, political, and external hazards of falsehoods, each of which seeks to avoid the cost of stress required by continuous competition, innovation, adaptation, limited to reciprocal, truthful, and productive means.

  • The Cost of Non European Civilizations to Themselves

    Feb 11, 2020, 7:32 AM

    —“Do you think being a european or not can be measured by the volume of the hazards of the externalities a person causes while coercing/persuading one’s self? And how the community constantly arranges to insure the externalities and and cover the damages?”— Mea Culba

    Non european communities seek to minimize stress of adaptation through relative equality and harmony – producing relative stasis – rather than adaptive competitive excellence – producing relative evolution, and the continuous distribution of the benefits of innovation and adaptation. Well, that’s the inverse of saying european civilization’s realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, identity, logic, rational choice, reciprocity, together that constrain our logics, sciences and laws, collected in the physical laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the laws of testimonial thought and speech, place the highest burden on our conscientiousness and reason in exchange for eliminating frictions personal interpersonal political and external, and therefore the least frictions of innovation adaptation and evolution. We (europeans) evolve the fastest because we minimize the personal, interpersonal, social, political, and external hazards of falsehoods, each of which seeks to avoid the cost of stress required by continuous competition, innovation, adaptation, limited to reciprocal, truthful, and productive means.

  • Ruining Good Art Is Explicitly Written in The Goals for Communism

    Ruining Good Art is explicitly written in the goals for communism:

    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” https://www.citizenreviewonline.org/2010/Jun/communism.html —Alfred Wittmann

  • Ruining Good Art Is Explicitly Written in The Goals for Communism

    Ruining Good Art is explicitly written in the goals for communism:

    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” https://www.citizenreviewonline.org/2010/Jun/communism.html —Alfred Wittmann

  • Voting

    Feb 12, 2020, 9:50 AM

    —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey

    From Alexander Hamilton:

    —“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative. “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.” Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—

    Source: Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.

  • It’s Not Free Markets Its Rule of Law

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.

  • It’s Not Free Markets Its Rule of Law

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.