Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • We were tolerant of religions in order to prevent a state religion, not to prohi

    We were tolerant of religions in order to prevent a state religion, not to prohibit immoral religions that violate natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 13:30:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690526921873031168

    Reply addressees: @Heritage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Heritage

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right—a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. https://t.co/KqAXaSreDv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

  • NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT. (read it) (learn

    NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT.

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    This cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law.

    Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion.

    If a religion is incompatible with Natural Law, then it is the merger of politics and religion – yet defense of the separation of church and state is the reason for our tolerance of religions.

    So it is a logical contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights.

    So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law.

    Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law.

    Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law.

    Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Talmud and the

    Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men.

    Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law.

    Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering.

    We threw Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed.

    We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism.

    And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda).

    We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated.

    There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies.

    The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law.

    Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism.

    We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law.

    We are the only people to have done it.

    They others hate it.

    We must not perish from this earth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Keiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 09:04:00 UTC

  • I dunno. Josh and the Nietzscheans kicked my around a bit and I’ve been working

    I dunno. Josh and the Nietzscheans kicked my around a bit and I’ve been working on it, and I can probably get there. Natural Law, the right to demand it, to enforce it, and to make beauty to celebrate one’s victory is enough. I begin to see a sort of way to get there….

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 09:46:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) 1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Mea

    (from elsewhere)

    1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Meaning that the purpose is not to change behavior but to forcibly remove people from the commons, the social order, and the gene pool, and continue the ongoing incremental suppression of aggression, and long term pacification of aggression in the world.

    2) As far as I know the death penalty has little impact on certain demographics, possibly because it is statistically improbable that one will suffer it. However, through about 1900 we hung about .5-1% of people a year and the argument is that this was responsible for the genetic advantage of northern europeans everywhere they went in the world – the people who were otherwise were culled.

    3) The evidence from the field, from sheriffs, from police, from prosecutors, is that the three strikes policy has been disproportionately effective. It has for example caused vast migrations between states of the organized petty crime conducted by the methamphetamine trade. And in the northwest its a common complaint that lower tolerance drives Idaho criminals into eastern Washington for example.

    4) Conformity in this case is Non Aggression against Property En Toto. It is somewhat hard to argue that non-aggression is something we avoid conforming to. (If you have some other logic at hand I would love to understand it.)

    One cannot create an intertemporal disincentive for the inter-temporally challenged and cognitively impaired. We can however, cull them if they engage in aggression, and if not we can pay them to behave.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 04:48:00 UTC

  • “Aristocracy: the move from ‘broken window policing’ to ‘broken spinal cord poli

    —“Aristocracy: the move from ‘broken window policing’ to ‘broken spinal cord policing’, apparently. I’d like to see this purported evidence.”— a Critic.

    Evidence: Pinker: Better Angels.

    Wade: Troublesome Inheritance.

    Clarke: The Son Also Rises.

    Principles:

    1) Paedomorphic Evolution,

    2) Genetic Pacification,

    3) Legal, Cultural, and Normative Pressure against aggression, impulsivity, high time preference, and low intelligence.

    4) economic ostracization of non-conformists, the use of late marriage, and the ban on cousin marriage.

    Although I love the idea of combining the broken window and broken spinal cord concepts.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 02:34:00 UTC

  • Violence can be used to construct property rights or destruct them. Violence is

    Violence can be used to construct property rights or destruct them.

    Violence is a neutral concept. Might makes right in the construction of rights and wrong in the destruction of them.

    The question is not whether might makes right….. But whether rights can be constructed without might.

    Logic and evidence suggest no.

    The strong posses Liberty.

    The weak posses permission.

    Numbers matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 14:59:00 UTC

  • BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMON

    BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMONS.

    ( https://www.facebook.com/JoeySalads/videos/549083008591884/ )

    Had she picked a spot with limited privacy it would be one thing. Had she placed a blanket over her shoulder, that would be another. But they picked a spot where she was ADVERTISING and that’s quite different. It’s disregard for purity in the commons.

    We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

    As far as I know the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

    I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

    Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

    Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

    Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

    Sorry. Just how it is.

    PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THREE LOW TRUST GENE POOLS AND CULTURES IN THIS VIDEO. (PROLES)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:39:00 UTC

  • Is capitalism good? Yes is a half statement. A statement of the OBVERSE. But it

    Is capitalism good? Yes is a half statement. A statement of the OBVERSE. But it lack the REVERSE: If and only if all parasitism under it is still eliminated by rule of law and universal standing.

    There are few unlimited theories. Parasitism is the limit of cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 08:55:00 UTC

  • capitalism moral? Walter Williams says yes, it is the most moral philosophy mank

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJr2RO7g7jI—-Is capitalism moral? Walter Williams says yes, it is the most moral philosophy mankind has ever pondered! Do you agree?—-

    It is, if:

    (a) it doesn’t occur under a representative government open to special interests that can seek rents, and instead operates by either direct democracy if people are marginally indifferent, or economic democracy if they are substantially different, or by different houses using either direct or economic democracy for diverse polities.

    And (b) if there is rule of law (universal application) whose decidability in law is against parasitism,

    (c) and where there exists universal standing (universal right of suit), so that groups of individuals can punish organizations that engage in parasitism either directly, or via the state.

    Capitalism is moral ( non-parasitic and produces rational, voluntary, cooperation ) if and only if there are no means available FOR IT TO BE USED IMMORALLY.

    There is no common good other than cooperative non parasitism. After that it’s all a matter of market choice in production of consumption or commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 08:54:00 UTC

  • ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CO

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?utm_hp_ref=yahoo&ir=YahooWHY ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN ASYMMETRICALLY INFORMED PARTIES.

    (i.e. women want us to make the world safe for their impulses.)

    Hmmmm….. Not sure I agree. Surprisingly for me also.

    There is an enormous asymmetry of knowledge and experience between a man of the world at 40, and a naive (ignorant) college girl.

    I do not read Martha’s post any differently than the same young woman attempting to drive an exotic super car, and damaging it, and herself in the consequent accident. She assumed too much of herself in both circumstances. She should have had less confidence and more skepticism, and made more inquiries, and engaged incremental training of herself.

    The ethical question is not whether she disapprove of the experience. But why she was so ignorant, and why he was wiling to have sex with her, and why she expected him to have sex on her (naive) terms?

    From his perspective (and any man who has a lot of female attention), ‘rough sex’ is pretty commonplace – and often desirable, and often rewarded. (Thanks to the internet era, we have data now, so it’s not a matter of subjective opinion. It is what it is. Women prefer the inner gorilla to the outer gentleman, and more intelligent people tend to be worse at sex. )

    So it begs the question: why do we teach equality and subjective prediction of normative behavior, rather than asymmetry?

    As far as I can tell the postwar era was an intellectual, cultural, political, and economic, catastrophe – an experiment with a new postmodern mysticism.

    Effete (naive) subjective projections of norms to the contrary.

    Why do we lie? Why have we created a century of lies?

    Men are super-predators that have spent at least ten thousand years in self pacification through war, ritual, religion, politics, economics, law, sport, norms, the family, farming, mutual cooperation, and daily fighting. Why do we tell ourselves and others that man does anything other than act in his rational self interest given the options at his disposal?

    Women have had too little time to redevelop institutions and wisdom of controlling their impulses now that they are free of the hearth, home, and paternal and maternal protections.

    The law accounts for this by punishing people of similar experiences, and being skeptical of asymmetric experiences. As such **avoid asymmetric experiences** in all walks of life. Risks are fun but costly in all walks of life. A woman has a genetic bias to experiment with alphas but her youthful ignorance does not know how to manage them.

    We do not make the world better by making it safe for idiots to act in ignorance and impulsiveness. We make it better when we educate and avoid risks we do not understand the consequences of.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:30:00 UTC