Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • THE OATH OF ONE Pseudoscientific Democratic Humanism and Islamism are equal part

    THE OATH OF ONE

    Pseudoscientific Democratic Humanism and Islamism are equal parts tyranny. Both are predicated upon lies. Both rely upon a priesthood in equally ideological academies, preaching the same content with different myths.

    There is only one source of liberty: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. And there never will exist any other.

    THE OATH OF ONE

    There is but one source of liberty: The Militia;

    One institution for sustaining it: The Law;

    One rule for deciding it: Property;

    One ritual for observing it: Speaking the truth;

    One promise for fulfilling it: Punish the wicked.

    One person required to act upon it: Me.

    One method of acting upon it: violence.

    One one oath to be made: “I accept it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:07:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY EXISTS ONLY UNDER RULE OF LAW AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GEN

    LIBERTY EXISTS ONLY UNDER RULE OF LAW AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GENERAL RULES IN LAW.

    As far as I know liberty can only be constructed under rule of law. The only question is the scope of permissible law: the range of property humans intuit to aspire to acquire, that the community agrees to organize and apply violence to defend.

    So no, a ‘moral principle’ is just a deceptive argument, and a ‘guiding principle’ is just a ruse – a justification for not solving the very hard problem: of that which we consider to be property by our actions, and that which we are willing to enforce with our actions.

    Everything else is just an elaborate deception or convenient justification.

    (And I use the term justification as a synonym for self deception)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 10:54:00 UTC

  • NO, MR. LIBERTINE, YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. 🙂 Your opinion as to whether you

    NO, MR. LIBERTINE, YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. 🙂

    Your opinion as to whether your a libertarian or a libertine is immaterial. Either you’re a libertarian and the law must suppress all free riding in both public and private spheres; or you are an advocate for the most extensive free riding that is possible without the application of violence – by forbidding the use of violence in retaliation for free riding.

    So you’re a libertarian under rule of law, or a libertine to escape rule of law.

    Your opinion is not material – only your choice of the scope of property to be protected from parasitism.

    It’s that simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 10:09:00 UTC

  • IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW. Given that there is only one law – the

    IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW.

    Given that there is only one law – the prevention of free riding; and one means of suppressing it – the law. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation to escape the limitations of competitors – market competition. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation in the means of escaping the limits of that law. And as such, preservation of that market, by that law, requires that we match innovation in the law, so that the difference between market innovation to escape competition, free riding to take advantage of new opportunities for free riding, and the legal means of suppressing free riding, preserve confidence in taking risks, and preserve the velocity of the market, and preserve the accumulation of wealth. Then the question remains why we would need competing legal systems any more than we would need competing systems of mathematics. If we separate judiciary from government, meaning that we separate the resolution of disputes and innovation in the law, from the production of commons via a contract, then we may need different governments for the different allocations of control over our individual property rights, in order to produce the commons that are desirable by our individual group members, but I can understand no conditions under which we require competing systems of law, other than to allow different ranges of morality in the creative application of free riding. We may require organic and distributed evolution of the law, much like we use in science today – moving from hypothesis on a law, to theory on a law, to ‘law’ proper by the accumulation of judicial consent. But if these laws diverge, then something is wrong. The reason being that all legal disputes are decidable, and if they are not then they are not matters of property open to decision making.

    As far as I know this is a box and the theory of a market for law is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 02:07:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes

    UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes or what it costs. Set a precedent that ‘if you betray your people we will kill you.” Never surrender, never forgive, never forget, and defeat your enemies completely.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:00:00 UTC

  • GENDER CONTRACT? —-“I have a great idea : control your impulses to gossip, ren

    GENDER CONTRACT?

    —-“I have a great idea : control your impulses to gossip, rent-seek like a vampire, and impose socialism upon us, and I’ll control my impulses to beat, rape, murder, and steal? OK? …… Oh. Wait. I ALREADY DO THAT. So what are you waiting for? Hold up your part of the bargain.”—-

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 12:30:00 UTC

  • What I love about Russians? I punch in the face and a good beating are required

    What I love about Russians? I punch in the face and a good beating are required male interdisciplinary behaviours.

    What I don’t is that they need so many…..

    As far as I can tell the world was better under duels and punching in the face.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 19:32:00 UTC

  • I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce other

    I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce others into moral behavior.

    He will not coerce others into any behavior without moral authority.

    As such, we merely needed to give western man moral authority to act to coerce the immoral, in order to produce the true, the good, and the beautiful.

    Because unlike scriptural or totalitarian civilizations, our western philosophy is not written down in positive form. It is written only in criticisms of the results of our unwritten behaviors and traditions.

    That is why we had to write it down in aristocratic egalitarianism, Propertarianism and testimonial truth.

    To give moral men moral authority to punish the wicked until they are no longer wicked, or the flee, or they die.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 04:04:00 UTC

  • DEFEAT NOT CONSENT I’m not seeking your approval. I’m challenging you to a fight

    DEFEAT NOT CONSENT

    I’m not seeking your approval. I’m challenging you to a fight. A duel on behalf of aristocrats, aristocracy and mankind. Your agreement is just words, an opportunity for deception, your excuse as changeable as your mood, and your promise fades with the breath that spoke it. But your defeat exists and persists, and is beyond your intention or control. So, I do not care for your worthless approval or consent. I care that others know that you are defeated, and that I defeated you.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-27 04:51:00 UTC

  • BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIBERTARIANS —“There are millions of pragmatic boots-on-th

    BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIBERTARIANS

    —“There are millions of pragmatic boots-on-the-ground libertarians. Anyone who votes conservative, and would do defense as, “speak softly carry big stick,” doesn’t care if men marry men, multiple women, or budget for whores – is a Libertarian. And every one of them would limit the power of Democracy, and would defend his own property with limitless violence.

    “NAPpers” are academic weirdos – the priests who are nice enough, and who we get along with – but they are determined to prove to everyone that there is a god. The thing is, whether they prove that there is a god or not, doesn’t determine whether or not we will continue to enforce our preferences (Libertarian Hegemony) within reality.”—

    Morgan Warstler

    (ed: slightly edited for clarity)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 13:41:00 UTC