Curt Doolittle

Theme: Demonstrated Interests

  • Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i

    Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).

  • Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i

    Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).

  • This is the real question of the 21st century, isn’t it? Just how capable are co

    This is the real question of the 21st century, isn’t it? Just how capable are common people of political judgement without demonstrated success in war, family, and commerce, and therefore possessed out of achievement, with skin in the game?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-28 13:46:00 UTC

  • Anything we value, we value within limits. Anything we claim to value within any

    Anything we value, we value within limits. Anything we claim to value within any limits has proven to be demonstrably false by our demonstrated preference. All self reporting is false – that’s why psychology has tried to desperately reform, and why sociology is the laughing stock discipline: because it is purely pseudoscientific. As such we’re seeing cognitive science, economics, and law displace sociology just as the sciences displaced theology and philosophy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-24 13:18:00 UTC

  • 1) Democracy is a means of selecting priorities among peoples with similar inter

    1) Democracy is a means of selecting priorities among peoples with similar interests.

    2) Markets are a means of cooperating across dissimilar interests.

    3) Monopoly (Majority) rule is a means of circumventing cooperation between dissimilar interests, and institutionalizing theft – when every theft creates agitation and is a lost opportunity for cooperation.

    The genders (men/women), the classes, the institutions (force, trade, talk), as well as the federation, the state, the locality, and the neighborhood, all require local democracy and a hierarchy of markets in everything.

    Majoritarianism was fine when we had a house of lords/senate of regions, and a house of small business owners (farmers and merchants). It stopped being fine almost immediately. And it ceased being fine the moment the industrial revolution kicked in, and different regions developed different nations and no longer shared common interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 10:22:00 UTC

  • “And so the (left’s) circle of stupid continues.”— Why? Because it is rational

    —“And so the (left’s) circle of stupid continues.”—

    Why? Because it is rational and presumptuous, and not empirical and juridical.

    Conservatism says only ‘demonstrate small successes first, then scale.’

    But the left creates moral hazards we cannot back out of creating a continuous cycle of decline.

    Thush “One may take no action, personal or political, for which one cannot perform restitution and reversal.”

    This is the limit to ‘reciprocity’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:36:00 UTC

  • I am not sure we should be so fascinated by IQ over 110. Maybe even 105. I mean,

    I am not sure we should be so fascinated by IQ over 110. Maybe even 105. I mean, as far as I can tell, demonstrated intelligence – or maybe we should call it ‘wisdom’, which is sufficient for action in all walks of life – which we should differentiate from intelligence – or the rate at which we can learn abstractions, seems largely a problem of eliminating impulse, bias, ignorance, and attempts at upgrading our status by ‘cheating’ using various means of verbal and signal deceptions. We can train people into wisdom just as we do in to reading, mathematics, and sciences. So if we produce a narrow distribution, that’s just fine. The problem is the bottom.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 19:59:00 UTC

  • Patience, Compromise, Exchange Failed. Enfranchisement without demonstrated meri

    Patience, Compromise, Exchange Failed. Enfranchisement without demonstrated merit has failed. Property, Family, Industry Required.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 10:13:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IN PUBLIC IS EASY. All ‘should’ or ‘is’ statements implicitly begin with “

    TRUTH IN PUBLIC IS EASY.

    All ‘should’ or ‘is’ statements implicitly begin with “I promise that you will find….”. It is very hard to make promises when you lack the information to operationally state them. It’s far harder when you also have to demonstrate rationality of choice due to incentives, reciprocity, and fully accounting.

    Now, I have been talking about this for years now, and I have observed that very, very, very few people can state their cherished beliefs under operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted language.

    It’s very difficult to come to terms with the fact, that you in fact, in all but the rarest of cases, have no idea what you’re talking about. And instead everything you think you know is just a hodge podge of sayings you’ve heard from others.f

    It is very easy to require truthful speech. It’s almost impossible to state without knowing the truth. The simple fact of trying to state something truthfully in an operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted set of statements will demonstrate fairly rapidly whether a proposition survives even the most trivial of tests.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 15:40:00 UTC

  • Since, like the chinese system demonstrated knowledge of the political system is

    Since, like the chinese system demonstrated knowledge of the political system is demonstrably harmful compared to the british requirement for demonstrated SUCCESS in the production of the private and common before one could participate in the political process.

    The political process is relatively meaningless. It is a market for favors within a market for divvying up the spoils of population density.

    So while we originally had a ‘house’ for each class: the monarchy (‘private governor of last resort’), the regional nobility (private ‘governors’ of regional businesses), the house of commons (‘private governors of homes – small businesses’) we now have majority rule by women and the peasantry.

    Where Jefferson’s intention was to widen the net of enfranchisement as widely as possible because nearly everyone participated in the markets (owned property, farmed), but where the lower classes (slave, ‘serf’, employee) who were not successful at responsibility for others, had no influence – today what percentage of people demonstrate responsibility for (a) the business of the home (b) a small or medium business, (c) a large business or region. And what percentage of people are outside of the market where goods and services must perform? (media, schools, academy, state bureaucracies, and employees of most businesses).

    So the question is not *who knows how the government works* (since it’s a trivial question), but *who can produce demonstration of knowledge of how the world works, such that we minimize the damage that slaves, serfs, employees, bureaucrats, and intellectuals, who don’t have any warranty of responsibility cannot do the damage to our civilization*

    It is one thing to say we should not have mob rule. It is another thing to say we should have ‘reported pretense of understanding’, and quite another that has DEMONSTRATED application of understanding.

    In other words, a bureaucracy with ‘reporting’ epistemology is just another self-reinforcing fantasy priesthood (like the postmodern academy) while a DEMONSTRATED epistemology provides a the only scientific method of selecting people for the operation of a government.

    Reasoning is nothing without empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted for tests of one’s reasoning. Reason is just another form of fantasy literature.

    It’s acting with it as a formula that decides the veracity of the literature.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 08:08:00 UTC