Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY

    IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

    (you probably want to read this)

    Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.

    —“Nazism, fascism are merely conservative and nationalistic versions of socialism. Nobody is under the illusion individuals own anything under nazism/fascism. Even men’s body’s become the property of the state. The world anti fascist war was fought from 1939-45 precisely because the sober knew the danger”— A Friend

    Correct. It was an era of warfare against communism. The difference was that while napoleon had invented total war of nationalism, the marxists and bolsheviks had created a total war of the underclass by way of rebellion, a pseudoscientific religion to replace mysticism, using the promise of heaven in this life rather than the next.

    Fascism responded yet again with nationalism expanded to economic and cultural warfare in return, where napoleon had responded with military fascism in the roman model.

    Hitler’s ‘genius’ was to combine mussolini’s nationalism with an aesthetic religion to match or exceed that of the communist underclasses, thereby uniting classes against communism’s cult.

    Neither model is economically feasible, but both are simply methods of conducting warfare by the use of propaganda made possible by rail, telegraph, radio, and cinema. The pulpit could be everywhere.

    But we can learn from rome as usual: fascism (generalship) in times of war, and markets (rule of law) in times of peace. And that a government must adapt to circumstance, whether warfare (fascism), peace (classical liberalism), or surplus (social democracy). And that such adaptation is merely scientific necessity rather than pondering the folly of philosophical ideals.

    In other words: Technology(Real) not philosophy(ideal).

    You are, I think, as a moral man, confusing the ideal ‘good’ (classical liberalism in times of peace) with the necessary (fascism in times of war), with social democracy (redistribution of windfalls) and that governments must flex between the three models as necessary given their circumstances. And better yet, that flexibility allows for the destruction of rents accumulated under each model.

    As far as I know the science of government is closed. All anyone can do is lie cheat and steal if they advocate otherwise.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 12:42:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, “Propertarianism” and “Nomocracy” are synonyms. It’s just that

    As far as I know, “Propertarianism” and “Nomocracy” are synonyms. It’s just that Propertarianism *explains precisely why* nomocracy (rule of law) is moral – and ‘natural’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-15 15:51:00 UTC

  • I am patriotic to my people, and the rule of law

    I am patriotic to my people, and the rule of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 20:45:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897197383595044866

    Reply addressees: @Digitalgreatime

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173148256399360

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173148256399360

  • Is it? Or is it incompatible with the centralization of power in DC instead of a

    Is it? Or is it incompatible with the centralization of power in DC instead of as intended, in the states?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 20:44:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897197246701346817

    Reply addressees: @Digitalgreatime

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173810444718080

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173810444718080

  • THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW First: I think that if you can’t de

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW

    First: I think that if you can’t define the term ‘science’ that you can’t make claims about who understands what. And I am fairly certain that very few people can define science in scientific terms so to speak. So there is a very great difference between the definition of science that one warranties and a definition that one does not.

    Second: there is a difference between (a) science that identifies a pattern, or opportunity, and science that defines limits of the pattern or opportunity, (b) science that it is possible to draw deductions from, and science that it is not. (c) science that one warranties, and science one does not.

    Third: there is a difference between policy one warranties and policy one does not.

    The difference between science and non-science is only testable by warranty.

    How would science and policy differ if one’s speech and policy were involuntarily warrantied, just as products(property) and services(actions) are involuntarily warrantied?

    Is information(science) not a market goods? Is there some special pleading you think that science is worthy of? (no)

    The problem is not the definition of science. the problem is lack of warranty of due diligence, and lack of involuntary warranty against falsehood, immorality, and harm.

    The problem is not science – it is law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 09:59:00 UTC

  • “CURT: ARE WE LOOKING AT A RACE WAR?”— No. We are looking at the exhaustion of

    —“CURT: ARE WE LOOKING AT A RACE WAR?”—

    No.

    We are looking at the exhaustion of the value of a central government that was imposed upon the various states in order to maintain control over westward expansion across the continent after the louisiana purchase.

    At present there is no further value in that government, since the various regions have very different ambitions, and the six immigrant cities have various ambitions. All these ambitions are at odds.

    It is possible to devolve the federal government out of the business of norms, and limited to territorial defense, insurer of last resort, and resolution of disputes in interstate trade.

    What we should seek is devolution, elimination of the house, senate, and presidency, and limited secession, leaving the governors to administer what remains of the federal government.

    We will then allow people in the country to sort into regions by county, with freedom of association and disassociation at the county level. This will organically divide the country into natural territories. and it will allow us to create a diverse set of polities suitable to different peoples.

    We will separate white conservatives and progressives and remove the left from our gene pool (again).

    The long term effect will be the rapid increase in high trust and desirability of conservative white territories and the continuous decline of urban and coastal cities into favellas.

    Military families will concentrate in conservative regions, and the end will be determined by natural consequences.

    Do not make it a race issue, make it a ‘choice for all of us to live as we wish’ – an issue for everyone.

    Freedom of association and disassociation will do the rest

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 19:41:00 UTC

  • “CURT: ARE WE LOOKING AT A RACE WAR?”— No. We are looking at the exhaustion of

    —“CURT: ARE WE LOOKING AT A RACE WAR?”—

    No.

    We are looking at the exhaustion of the value of a central government that was imposed upon the various states in order to maintain control over westward expansion across the continent after the louisiana purchase.

    At present there is no further value in that government, since the various regions have very different ambitions, and the six immigrant cities have various ambitions. All these ambitions are at odds.

    It is possible to devolve the federal government out of the business of norms, and limited to territorial defense, insurer of last resort, and resolution of disputes in interstate trade.

    What we should seek is devolution, elimination of the house, senate, and presidency, and limited secession, leaving the governors to administer what remains of the federal government.

    We will then allow people in the country to sort into regions by county, with freedom of association and disassociation at the county level. This will organically divide the country into natural territories. and it will allow us to create a diverse set of polities suitable to different peoples.

    We will separate white conservatives and progressives and remove the left from our gene pool (again).

    The long term effect will be the rapid increase in high trust and desirability of conservative white territories and the continuous decline of urban and coastal cities into favellas.

    Military families will concentrate in conservative regions, and the end will be determined by natural consequences.

    Do not make it a race issue, make it a ‘choice for all of us to live as we wish’ – an issue for everyone.

    Freedom of association and disassociation will do the rest

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 18:23:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND: DEMONSTRATING THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW You don’t really und

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND: DEMONSTRATING THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW

    You don’t really understand what is going on. The government folded to the 60’s violence in under three weeks. The right is merely attempting to work within the law to demonstrate that there is no law. Once they demonstrate that there is no law, they will no longer work within the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:53:00 UTC

  • My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I ha

    My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the SCIENCE and LOGIC of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.

    Where I differ from other thinkers in psychology and social science is that I have the experience of working on artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as counter intuitive and as difficult to learn as mathematics, reading, writing, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and engineering.

    My position on the application of this science and logic is that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development. And furthermore, that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation. And that this is the scientific means of historical analysis of different cultures and civilizations.

    The application of this reasoning produces a *theory*. It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But until it is sufficiently criticized by others – no matter how futile I think that criticism will be – it remains a theory. Because it is a narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 13:20:00 UTC

  • load time, but he gets there at least loosely: The only common interests america

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-cold-civil-war/Long load time, but he gets there at least loosely: The only common interests americans have is military defense.

    Literally. That’s it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 09:35:00 UTC