Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • One of the better amature attempts I’ve seen. Does avoid any nonsense claims or

    One of the better amature attempts I’ve seen. Does avoid any nonsense claims or magical thinking (very nice), doesn’t solve the central problems of modernity (lying), but does create a decent government for managing a small homogeneous polity. So in that sense ‘well done’.

    What I’d suggest for your further thought, is you try to address the tendency of religions, cults including philosophical and pseudoscientific cults, academics, and politicians, to sell false and impossible promises that the physical behavioral and evolutionary laws of nature are avoidable or escapable, and the tendency of the unfit to demand redistributions, and the tendency of women to avoid all possible responsibility for self or commons and to vote for them.

    The only reason to have the crisis of the present – and every major crisis since the 1890s, is the sale of false and impossible promises, and the introgression of non-europeans, then our working classes , and then women, into the polity. Because theyu’re the groups that vote for irresponsibility. And what you’ve proposed is a contractual government for those who are willing to act responsibly – without excluding the ability to sell false promises (frauds), and/or excluding those who demonstrate evasion of those responsibilities, and/or those who would vote for those irresponsibilities. 😉

    All in all well done. (I assume you’re under 30, and likely under 25, and so that’s pretty good work for the present day). 😉

    Reply addressees: @NoahsArkology

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-26 23:22:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651366218782195714

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651361621610995713

  • RT @InTruthVictori1: Democrats don’t want debates because they want to avoid con

    RT @InTruthVictori1: Democrats don’t want debates because they want to avoid conflict.

    Progressives want debates because they want the op…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-25 21:18:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650972657876074500

  • Mark (Hi BTW. Long time.) 1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading w

    Mark
    (Hi BTW. Long time.)

    1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading what critics accuse him of (which is always false).

    2) Hoppe’s reasoning isn’t reduced to a single clear analytic argument in a single long paragraph (or three) that fully answers objections.

    3) He doesn’t illustrate the difference between Rothbardian ethics of diasporics, German ethics of free cities, and Anglo ethics resulting from their formation of the modern rule of law nation state to frame the difference in responsibilities each of those peoples must bear in exchange for their sovereignty.

    4) It takes a bit of understanding to comprehend what Hoppe is arguing, and that’s partly his fault for:
    … (a) his adoption of sarcasm and ridicule as an agitating device. (Which we find endearing)
    … (b) starting with monarchy instead of rule of natural concurrent common law of cooperation governed by monarchy. (Which misses the reason for european civilizational superiority in evolutionary rates of development)
    … (c) basing his work on marxist argumentation ethics (AE) (which doesn’t hold in the face of ever-present violence), instead of that same natural law of cooperation. Meaning that it’s either difficult for normies to comprehend AE, or nonsense for those of us who study the history of the evolution of law.

    4) All those things aside, he’s right. Sorry. End of story.
    He is, however very loyal to Rothbard, very old-world German and Hierarchical, and overly invested in being absolutely correct rather than an incrementally innovative and incrementally correct. For my part I recognized that he had in fact reduced all questions of cooperation (social science, ethics and morality) to statements of demonstrated interests (property). And that ‘stubborness’ what prevents his legacy from surviving him. Because in retrospect between Mises-Rothbard, Rothbard-Hoppe and frankly Hoppe-Hayek-Popper-Becker (and myself) we solved social science in three generations. And we should take the damned trophy for solving the Aristotelian, Aquinan, Smith/Humeian, Darwinian project and uniting the sciences. Instead, the reason the libertarian-to-right spectrum fails is hyper-tribalism, meaning we eat ourselves, by eating our near neighbors in a crab bucket of mutual self-destruction.

    Hope you are well.
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-24 20:26:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650597186776735764

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572578030840877056

  • Mark (Hi BTW. Long time.) 1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading w

    Mark
    (Hi BTW. Long time.)

    1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading what critics accuse him of (which is always false).

    2) Hoppe’s reasoning isn’t reduced to a single clear analytic argument in a single long paragraph (or three) that fully answers objections.

    3) He doesn’t illustrate the difference between Rothbardian ethics of diasporics, German ethics of free cities, and Anglo ethics resulting from their formation of the modern rule of law nation state to frame the difference in responsibilities each of those peoples must bear in exchange for their sovereignty.

    4) It takes a bit of understanding to comprehend what Hoppe is arguing, and that’s partly his fault for:
    … (a) his adoption of sarcasm and ridicule as an agitating device. (Which we find endearing)
    … (b) starting with monarchy instead of rule of natural concurrent common law of cooperation governed by monarchy. (Which misses the reason for european civilizational superiority in evolutionary rates of development)
    … (c) basing his work on marxist argumentation ethics (AE) (which doesn’t hold in the face of ever-present violence), instead of that same natural law of cooperation. Meaning that it’s either difficult for normies to comprehend AE, or nonsense for those of us who study the history of the evolution of law.

    4) All those things aside, he’s right. Sorry. End of story.
    He is, however very loyal to Rothbard, very old-world German and Hierarchical, and overly invested in being absolutely correct rather than an incrementally innovative and incrementally correct. For my part I recognized that he had in fact reduced all questions of cooperation (social science, ethics and morality) to statements of demonstrated interests (property). And that ‘stubborness’ what prevents his legacy from surviving him. Because in retrospect between Mises-Rothbard, Rothbard-Hoppe and frankly Hoppe-Hayek-Popper-Becker (and myself) we solved social science in three generations. And we should take the damned trophy for solving the Aristotelian, Aquinan, Smith/Humeian, Darwinian project and uniting the sciences. Instead, the reason the libertarian-to-right spectrum fails is hyper-tribalism, meaning we eat ourselves, by eating our near neighbors in a crab bucket of mutual self-destruction.

    Hope you are well.
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @DrMarkThornton

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-24 20:26:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650597186596478977

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572578030840877056

  • RT @elonmusk: @oldbooksguy Orwell was right -> schools & media Huxley -> public

    RT @elonmusk: @oldbooksguy Orwell was right -> schools & media
    Huxley -> public *is* heavily medicated
    Rand was also right, as you say.

    W…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-24 10:40:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650449682252943362

  • Stop lying to make excuses to justify your emotions

    Stop lying to make excuses to justify your emotions.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-23 20:48:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650240210163191809

    Reply addressees: @fucktheNSA1979

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650239006066745344

  • I don’t follow. I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating

    I don’t follow.
    I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating a bias as a means of overcorrection for previous errors, by way of virtue signaling that they ‘got the message’ and in doing so claiming many of us didn’t presume gene flow previously anyway, given the plasticity of human(male) reproductive adaptation.

    It doesn’t change the basic question of whether there were four or five major isolation and speciation events each incrementally (quite large really) exchanging aggression for agency and cooperation, and apparently, group average intelligence as a consequence.

    This is the meaningful question that we struggle with in the postwar revolt against the Darwinian explanation for all observed phenomena in the universe: evolutionary computation by marginal decreases in random trial and error.

    The present crisis, at its origin, is between the feminine presumption of marginal indifference, and the masculine presumption of marginal difference, and the rather dramatic differences in group behavior because of those differences, depending upon the density and proximity of groups. And the resulting formal and informal institutions necessary for each group.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-23 17:29:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650190180857389056

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650170890385252352

  • I don’t follow. I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating

    I don’t follow.
    I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating a bias as a means of overcorrection for previous errors, by way of virtue signaling that they ‘got the message’ and in doing so claiming many of us didn’t presume gene flow previously anyway, given the plasticity of human(male) reproductive adaptation.

    It doesn’t change the basic question of whether there were four or five major isolation and speciation events each incrementally (quite large really) exchanging aggression for agency and cooperation, and apparently, group average intelligence as a consequence.

    This is the meaningful question that we struggle with in the postwar revolt against the Darwinian explanation for all observed phenomena in the universe: evolutionary computation by marginal decreases in random trial and error.

    The present crisis, at its origin, is between the feminine presumption of marginal indifference, and the masculine presumption of marginal difference, and the rather dramatic differences in group behavior because of those differences, depending upon the density and proximity of groups. And the resulting formal and informal institutions necessary for each group.

    Reply addressees: @realSeanScott @razibkhan

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-23 17:29:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650190180656074753

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1650170890385252352

  • RT @nianello6: @MagicBelle1 “[T]he purpose of communist propaganda was… to hum

    RT @nianello6: @MagicBelle1 “[T]he purpose of communist propaganda was… to humiliate…. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-20 11:52:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649018185234931712

  • RT @WalterIII: Whenever you hear a criticism of “book burning” you are hearing a

    RT @WalterIII: Whenever you hear a criticism of “book burning” you are hearing a deception from the left. Our education system is doing pl…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-19 22:58:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648823479343431682