Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • OK, CALI. LETS CLARIFY – NOT GONNA HAPPEN. 1) Cut the water. 2) Close the federa

    OK, CALI. LETS CLARIFY – NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

    1) Cut the water.

    2) Close the federal reserve branches in SF and LA and transfer them to Utah’s branch.

    3) Close the land exits from California to the USA.

    4) Close the ports – air and sea.

    Watch a reclaimed desert, convert back to desert.

    SO:

    1) please seceded, we want you to. you’re a cancer for this country.

    2) take your portion of the national debt that you were so heavily responsible for creating.

    3) create a new currency and issue it in the hopes that someone in the world will take it.

    4) build dozens of desalination plants with the money you won’t have.

    5) lose all the revenue that is created by CA’s function as a port of entry.

    6) lose all trade revenue with the rest of the country.

    7) beg to be part of china since they’re the only people who can finance your survival.

    8) learn chinese, and how to live under authoritarian rule.

    9) note that the rest of us will lock the doors, throw away the key, and leave you to die.

    You know. You can go nicely, or you can go ‘dead’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 18:33:00 UTC

  • INTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. VIA POSITIVA (STORIES) HELP ORGANIZE BUT VIA NEGATIVA

    INTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. VIA POSITIVA (STORIES) HELP ORGANIZE BUT VIA NEGATIVA (LAW) DECIDES OUTCOMES.

    The purpose of Natural Law is to prevent harm, resolve disputes, and force restitution. If no dispute, no harm, no externality exists then this is not a matter for law. law evolves via negativa. by discovering methods of conflict because of parasitism and preventing them by recording them as a warning that one will be forced to pay restitution, and as a help to those who want to know how to avoid conflict. It is a purely empirical process.

    If one seeks to build consensus that is not the function of the law (via negativa). Yet if one seeks to build consensus by MEANS THAT CANNOT BE WARRANTED, and means that cannot be testified to, then one has failed to perform due diligence against harm, and one can be brought up for restitution.

    Intentions are irrelevant.

    The ease of transfer is irrelevant.

    The ‘good’ of the outcome is irrelevant.

    Those are statemetns of positiva (intention and excuse making)

    However, when we come into dispute, disputes are decidable. All differences in property in toto are decidable.

    If one does not impose a cost against property in toto then the matter is undecidable, precisely because it is immaterial. What you do in your own head that does not manifest itself as an imposition of costs upon the costs paid by others is irrelevant. (and reciprocity applies to others).

    If you want a positive political philosophy (methods of cooperating in the production of commons) then we have a spectrum of options from near dictatorship to near anarchy to choose from. I don’t need to list them. We know them.

    If you want a positive personal philosophy (generative options) we have at least these methods to choose from: , dreaming/free-association, the occult/new-age, superstition, myth, literature, Tradition/habit, rules of thumb/imitation, general rules of arbitrary precision (truth/science/history).

    if you want an mental discipline mindfulness discipline we can achieve this through drugs/dreaming, suppression/meditation, internal-(recursive)-conversation/prayer, disciplined and restive ritual, contemplative writing, disciplined action-planning(stoicism), physical exercise/hiking-running-walking.

    But if you want to DECIDE between competing wants, or decide between matters of conflict, there is only one possible method of decidability.

    Now I might prefer a highly redistributed homogenous polity under strict rule of natural law, requiring all of that redistribution to be truthfully stated in the law, transparently performed and objectively measured. And I might prefer that order simply because I am highly independent by virtue of my talents and skills, and people seem to find me useful. But I can see others who are not so independent, not possessed of talents and skills, and not found useful, preferring a different order – although it is hard to understand a better order for getting it to them morally.

    Now, others might prefer a different order for immoral reasons. Those reasons might be obvious (inabilty to compete in a market). Or they might be less obvious: inability to organize toward a productive end truthfllly. or they might be insidious: attempting to disorganize or organize toward a harmful end.

    But all of these cases are decidable.

    But in order for a case to be decidable, someone’s interests (property in toto) must have been subject to harm because of it.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 13:04:00 UTC

  • “I’m starting to think slavery was a humane”— (anon)(ironic) I don’t know if i

    —“I’m starting to think slavery was a humane”— (anon)(ironic)

    I don’t know if it’s humane, chattel slavery certainly wasn’t.

    But I’m not sure the process of ‘invountary servitude’ > ‘limited freedom’ > ‘personal freedom’ > ‘Political voice’ is a bad idea. I mean… it’s what we do with all children. right?

    If instead we iterate rights the same way that provdies incentives. THat’s how we rais(ed) children, and it’s how we raise man.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:26:00 UTC

  • ***Your approval is undesirable. Your productive exchange is. And if that’s unat

    ***Your approval is undesirable. Your productive exchange is. And if that’s unattainable, your submission is preferable, and failing that, your extermination necessary.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:50:00 UTC

  • All power resides in violence – violence exists by its own making. Finance, Prod

    All power resides in violence – violence exists by its own making.

    Finance, Production and Trade exist by permission.

    Priests, Academy, Intellectuals and Gossips by tolerance.

    The strong always rule.

    The question is, will you rule?

    Or will you be ruled?

    If you rule, will you rule competitively?

    Or will you rule uncompetitively?

    Rule is profitable. It is the most profitable of businesses.

    If one rules well, it is the most moral of businesses.

    If one rules well for a long time, one transcends man.

    So, stop thinking like a bourgeoise, and think as a ruler that makes the productive bourgeoise possible by permission, and the parasitic gossips, possible by tolerance.

    The reason to rule well, with permission and tolerance, is that one can rule profitably and enjoy it, one can rule long and persist it, and one can rule morally and transcend man.

    What greater achievements are possible?

    None.

    So let us rule.

    Rule well.

    Rule profitably and enjoyably.

    Rule persistently.

    And Transcend the beast man.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 14:01:00 UTC

  • Cernovich: ‘i mean, if we wanted to, we would roll them over’. Yes, well, i agre

    Cernovich: ‘i mean, if we wanted to, we would roll them over’.

    Yes, well, i agree that the time for violence is not now, but i mean it only as ‘not yet’.

    Mike is operating within democracy, but without demands.

    One needs demands.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 08:03:00 UTC

  • OUR DEEP STATE AND AMERICAN POLICY Our deep state works on the post war principl

    OUR DEEP STATE AND AMERICAN POLICY

    Our deep state works on the post war principle “world wars must never never happen again”: “Never Again” is achieved by forcing all nations into the international marketplace of finance and trade for their survival. This is achieved by: (a) fixed borders, (b) self determination of populations (c) human (property) rights, (d) states are legitimate only in so much as they advance a, b, c. (e) use of force is warranted against any state that violates a, b, c. (f) this combination will produce a world market where territorial conflicts are of greater risk than possible reward.

    The “Unstated” problem with this strategy is (b), is “self determination is your choice, but if you choose poorly, we will exterminate you.”

    That’s the real problem with post-war policy.

    A LOT OF PEOPLE CHOOSE POORLY. (communism, socialism, and now islamism. and yes islamism is just another resistance movement like communism, and socialism. The difference is that they are doing it through migration. And in history, migration periods are the cause of EVERY DARK AGE IN HISTORY.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 16:36:00 UTC

  • IN THE LONG RUN… Communism doesn’t’ work because people are selfish, and minim

    IN THE LONG RUN…

    Communism doesn’t’ work because people are selfish, and minimize their productivity whenever possible. So it rapidly degenerates into authoritarianism.

    Fascism doesn’t work because people are selfish and use power to create authoritarianism by incremental control of every fascism of life.

    Social Democracy doesn’t work because people are selfish and use majority rule to maximize rents and redistributions until the polity is unable to adjust to shocks, resulting in the only means of governance fascism of totalitarianism.

    Classical Democracy worked reasonably well because the houses formed a market for exchanges between classes in homogenous nations. But people are selfish, and despite the common law, use of majority rule that overrides common law create the opportunity and incentive to seek rents and construct social democracy.

    Nomocratic Capitalism will works best because natural law both allows only productive, fully informed, warrantied trade and prohibits externalities, whether in private or common markets because it enforces trades rather than justified-takings, and because it is impossible to obtain power since the only power is consent (rule of law).

    Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work because that much selfishness prohibits the formation of the commons necessary for the competitive survival of a polity.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:04:00 UTC

  • THE END OF HOPE AND THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE —‘yadda yadda yadda, nonsense, nons

    THE END OF HOPE AND THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    —‘yadda yadda yadda, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, shaming, shaming shaming, straw man, straw man, straw man”— Aaron Werner (via Discus)

    If you are ‘hopeful’ you try to inform, and then persuade.

    if you have given up hope, you can try to buy them off.

    If you cannot buy them off, you can only use violence to stop them.

    I changed the discourse from hope of requesting Liberty by faith in informing and persuading, to the hopelessness of persuasion, and the imposition of Sovereignty, by the organize use of violence to deny parasitism by all means.

    We are all but creatures of our genes. You, your genes, we, ours. We are no longer hopeful. We are no longer willing to tolerate the high cost of hopefulness that you and the minority of men like you, and the majority of women who you are like, will learn.

    We will end parasitism via the commons just as we have ended it in the market. We will deny others the possibility of majority tyranny, and force those who benefit from parasitism by the government, or parasitism by free riding on the west’s commons, back into the markets for the private and common .

    If you fool me once with Pilpul, divine command, and christianity, shame on me. If you fool me twice with marxism, libertinism, neo-conservatism, the pseudo-rationalism of critical theory, and the pseudosciences of boaz, marx, freud, cantor, and mises, then same on me.

    The experiment in tolerance is over. Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Davenport were right. Time to return to our ancient occupation of domesticating the animals (which I assume includes you) for fun and profit in an effort to create peers rather than parasites.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 16:54:00 UTC

  • I am not fond of regulations that create black-markets. I’m fond of preventing v

    I am not fond of regulations that create black-markets. I’m fond of preventing visibility in the commons. if distributing drugs is legal but a hand-craft industry between individuals, and there is no externality produced by it then that’s one thing. But what one must understand is that there is a difference between a vacation, medication, and mental-exit. We can all tolerate vacations (celebrations), and some of us need frequent medications. But if at any point one is exiting the use of reason, then one is exiting the constract of cooperation. And if you exit the contract of cooperation by forgoing reason, and you cause externalities, you have returned to animal state, and like any animal you are merely a pest that needs to be exterminated.

    In my opinion, this is the correct method of addressing the problem of drugs (and ideas) that affect one’s reason (and pleasure sensors).

    if you are human, and can participate in reciprocity then you are a candidate for cooperation, and not a burden on others. Otherwise you’re just an animal that may at times be capable of cooperation, and other times not. And as an animal rather than a human you can easily be exterminated like any other pest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:58:00 UTC