Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Frank Answers A Critic (Brilliantly)

    (Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—

  • Frank Answers A Critic (Brilliantly)

    (Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • Equality Creates Conflict

    ***Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict.*** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Equality Creates Conflict

    ***Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict.*** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.

    Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers

  • Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.

    Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers

  • Is Bigamy A ‘Hangable Offense’?

    —“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract.  By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).

  • Is Bigamy A ‘Hangable Offense’?

    —“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract.  By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).