Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • CURT: WILL YOU [Answer, Advise, Inspire] ME [or our Group], IF WE WANT TO [Learn

    CURT: WILL YOU [Answer, Advise, Inspire] ME [or our Group], IF WE WANT TO [Learn, Plan, Take Action]?

    Um. I it’s my job. I am accessible, I am free for the asking. Just ask. I answer questions all day long. I love doing it. I love enthusiasm.

    Now, as for Interviews? I won’t do interviews unless you’re ready to ask me specific questions on a specific topic. I don’t care if the conversation veers in various directions once we get there. But good questions are evidence of your ability to interview me. I don’t want or need to promote my work really. I wont just ‘explain propertarianism’ to people any longer. It’s too much for you, your audience, and to tedious for me. 😉 See? Easy. )

    Respect my time. I am not a potential chat buddy. I have plenty of friends. Thanks. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 19:18:00 UTC

  • ( Thoughts … Josh (all) what if we simply took quotes, excerpts, examples from

    ( Thoughts … Josh (all) what if we simply took quotes, excerpts, examples from science, history, literature, myth, and the ‘occult’ for major topics. In other words, why settle on a monopoly method of argument? In other words, don’t conflate into a monopoly argument, but preserve deflation while making use of conflationary readings? )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 10:34:00 UTC

  • YOU NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE (ACTUALLY, NO I DON’T) Colloquial verse (

    YOU NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE (ACTUALLY, NO I DON’T)

    Colloquial verse (narrative) comes last, not first. I have just finished what looks like 25 years of work, and six to eight of it full time, to ensure I knew what I was talking about. History is full of ‘accessible literature’ that did no good whatsoever, other than to satisfy the cravings of those not needing conversion. I wanted to wait until I knew what I was talking about.

    Our (my group’s) strategy all along has been to complete the work then produce a second version wrapped in literary references (examples pro and con).

    I do not think it is my job or function to talk to the common folk. And I do not think it is possible for me to do it. I think it is much more possible for the followers who enjoy that to do it. And that has been our plan all along.

    And furthermore, your intuition is false. It might be true for populism under democracy, but it won’t shift the world.

    Instead, look what nearly incomprehensible scribblers (like me) have achieved when we produce rigorous systems of thought – we live – largely unconsciously – in a society formed almost entirely by the writings of incomprehensible, often counter-intuitive, in their era-revolutionary, ‘scribblers’.

    And those want to organize people use those scribbles to do so.

    And arguments roll downhill.

    Just how it is.

    I originally did my work in public, becuase it was the only way to get decent criticism in a timely fashion. I kept doing it for that reason. And I continue doing it because I learn a great deal from those who follow me (and increasingly less so from critics).

    So your intuition is incorrect. That’s the evidence. Few people know who Spinoza was, no one has read darwin actually, or keynes, or acquinas, or hume, or kant. Or Marx for that matter. But we all live in societies constructed by the scribblings of these people.

    Power seeks argument.

    It is up to some of us to produce the weapons that those who can exert power seek.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 10:45:00 UTC

  • Learning Propertarianism (Natural Law)

    How Can I Learn About Propertarianism (Natural Law)

    Our Advice

    • Read the Overview – The Overviews page discusses key concepts and then refers  you to our ‘short courses’ or collections of posts on the novel concepts.
    • Watch The Videos – The Videos present hour long discussions of the novel concepts.
    • Take the Courses – The Propertarian Institute is Offering Courses (Spring 2017) in Natural law.

    What Else?

    • Read the posts in the “Core” – The Core contains the full spectrum of Natural Law (propertarianism) and Testimonial Law (testimonialism), and Market Government (which I, tongue-in-cheek, refer to as ‘Market Fascism’).
    • Learn to write and speak using “E-Prime” (it’s a bit hard). E-Prime will introduce you to writing ‘clearly’ by which we mean, in operational language.
    • Follow Curt on Facebook – I tend to repeat central themes in order to make it easier for new people to latch onto something familiar
    • Work your way through the Reading List – Our reading list contains the major works that will help you understand the different fields (this is a LOT of material).
    • Work your way through thousands of posts on Propertarianism.com – There is no substitute for reading a lot of short posts that repeat the basic ideas in different contexts. Propertarianism is non trivial and repetition beats concentration.

    How Long It Will Take?

    How long would it take you to learn to program a computer in an object oriented language? To study Calculus? To Study Accounting? To Study Economics? To study the law? Any technical discipline with it’s own methods and terminology takes about a year to ‘learn’, two years to feel comfortable with, and three years to be effective with, four years to be creative with, and five or six years to master: the 10,000 hour rule. This is just a rule of thumb when discussing how long it takes for humans to learn anything at all.  Some of us are faster and some of us slower, but in general, those who are faster can tolerate accumulating hours more so than those who are slower. But in the end, it’s hours.

    That said, if you read the Short Courses and watch the Videos, in one month you will see how it all fits together, and in three months you will find that it has affected your thinking.

    Our experience is that on average, if you read the articles, follow me, Eli, and a few others, that in six months you will ‘understand’ everything we say. It will take you about a year to ‘start thinking’ in Natural Law – and that’s when you’ll feel the explanatory power starts affecting your life. Then, sort of like a light switch, over a very short period of time, all human activity will ‘make sense’ in very simple terms. “Everything becomes obvious.”

    If you have come to Propertarianism through the usual route: Constitutionalist or Classical Liberal > Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > NRx > Propertarianism, then your progress will be much faster.

    If you have studied one of the hard sciences so that you are familiar with the scientific method and scientific epistemology, then your progress will be faster.

    If you have at least some understanding of accounting, finance, or economics, then it will be much faster.

    If you have a background in philosophy – it might actually slow you down: most of philosophy, like most of religion, is nonsense or outright falsehood: fantasy literature.

    (If you have abnormal behavior and you’re looking for justification of it, you won’t find it here – you will find that there is a differences between tolerance and advocacy and abnormal behavior is not something that will be sanctioned in any society for long. Go see the left libertarians. They love deviant, selfish, anti-social behavior.)

    But in general the more you know the easier it will be to learn.

  • Learning Propertarianism (Natural Law)

    How Can I Learn About Propertarianism (Natural Law)

    Our Advice

    • Read the Overview – The Overviews page discusses key concepts and then refers  you to our ‘short courses’ or collections of posts on the novel concepts.
    • Watch The Videos – The Videos present hour long discussions of the novel concepts.
    • Take the Courses – The Propertarian Institute is Offering Courses (Spring 2017) in Natural law.

    What Else?

    • Read the posts in the “Core” – The Core contains the full spectrum of Natural Law (propertarianism) and Testimonial Law (testimonialism), and Market Government (which I, tongue-in-cheek, refer to as ‘Market Fascism’).
    • Learn to write and speak using “E-Prime” (it’s a bit hard). E-Prime will introduce you to writing ‘clearly’ by which we mean, in operational language.
    • Follow Curt on Facebook – I tend to repeat central themes in order to make it easier for new people to latch onto something familiar
    • Work your way through the Reading List – Our reading list contains the major works that will help you understand the different fields (this is a LOT of material).
    • Work your way through thousands of posts on Propertarianism.com – There is no substitute for reading a lot of short posts that repeat the basic ideas in different contexts. Propertarianism is non trivial and repetition beats concentration.

    How Long It Will Take?

    How long would it take you to learn to program a computer in an object oriented language? To study Calculus? To Study Accounting? To Study Economics? To study the law? Any technical discipline with it’s own methods and terminology takes about a year to ‘learn’, two years to feel comfortable with, and three years to be effective with, four years to be creative with, and five or six years to master: the 10,000 hour rule. This is just a rule of thumb when discussing how long it takes for humans to learn anything at all.  Some of us are faster and some of us slower, but in general, those who are faster can tolerate accumulating hours more so than those who are slower. But in the end, it’s hours.

    That said, if you read the Short Courses and watch the Videos, in one month you will see how it all fits together, and in three months you will find that it has affected your thinking.

    Our experience is that on average, if you read the articles, follow me, Eli, and a few others, that in six months you will ‘understand’ everything we say. It will take you about a year to ‘start thinking’ in Natural Law – and that’s when you’ll feel the explanatory power starts affecting your life. Then, sort of like a light switch, over a very short period of time, all human activity will ‘make sense’ in very simple terms. “Everything becomes obvious.”

    If you have come to Propertarianism through the usual route: Constitutionalist or Classical Liberal > Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > NRx > Propertarianism, then your progress will be much faster.

    If you have studied one of the hard sciences so that you are familiar with the scientific method and scientific epistemology, then your progress will be faster.

    If you have at least some understanding of accounting, finance, or economics, then it will be much faster.

    If you have a background in philosophy – it might actually slow you down: most of philosophy, like most of religion, is nonsense or outright falsehood: fantasy literature.

    (If you have abnormal behavior and you’re looking for justification of it, you won’t find it here – you will find that there is a differences between tolerance and advocacy and abnormal behavior is not something that will be sanctioned in any society for long. Go see the left libertarians. They love deviant, selfish, anti-social behavior.)

    But in general the more you know the easier it will be to learn.

  • Seems like we are done with the problem solving. Now it’s up to teaching and dis

    Seems like we are done with the problem solving. Now it’s up to teaching and distributing.

    I am pretty confident that I can run a set of courses on Natural Law, and that I can teach every class that I need to.

    I am quite good on stage, I have taught, but not to a camera – and I worry about it.

    I can’t see a seminar format working becuase it requires graduate students with expertise in the subject matter and this subject matter is too alien.

    I have a burning urge to create courses because I think the incremental rollout of those courses will give me what I need to write the book in a newer, simpler, more accessible form.

    If I look at the chapters I drafted last summer and fall they are not as good as the work I would write today. And I think by teaching I will learn even better to write the book. I am not sure.

    What I do know is that every draft is dramatically shorter and that it is now something I can produce in short form, despite its scope.

    Moreover, it is very hard to sit and work without feedback. yet writing scripts for videos turns out to be an excellent method of writing chapters.

    So that’s what I’m thinking. It’s time to get started on those.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 19:58:00 UTC

  • I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained b

    I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained by the Academy (State Church) in the hatred of western civilization (Critical Theory), who are the immoral in word,deed and conspiracy of common folly.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:57:00 UTC

  • It’s OK to be ignorant (or stupid) but it is not OK to assume your level of comp

    It’s OK to be ignorant (or stupid) but it is not OK to assume your level of comprehension is a measure of anything but your own ignorance. OK? It only SOUNDS like ‘babble’ or ‘gibberish’ to you. You want others to pay the cost of educating you? That’s why you levy criticism. To use shaming in order to force others to educate you rather than demonstrating your ignorance and asking to be educated.

    I understand inadequacy. You just don’t realize that you’re demonstrating it – and fooling no one.

    If you don’t understand, then ask. If you’re too much of a poser to ask, or too stupid to understand, those are issues for you to deal with. Me, I’m patient as hell, and gregarious with the public – it’s my job. But there is a limit to the costs I am willing to bear on behalf of posers and idiots.

    😉

    I know, the supply of posers and idiots is much higher than the supply of moral, honest people, with capable intelligence. But this sort of catharsis helps me relieve my frustration of the reality of that asymmetry.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:42:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENS

    HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    —“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar

    It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.

    In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:

    “Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”

    Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.

    The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).

    We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).

    In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).

    But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?

    The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.

    How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?

    Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.

    Rule is something else altogether.

    Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.

    Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.

    CLOSING

    So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.

    I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.

    Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC

  • (humor)(takedown) Typical product of the Australian education system, with a deg

    (humor)(takedown)

    Typical product of the Australian education system, with a degree in philosophy (fictionalism) and politics (fictionalism), and like a good secular christian pursuing proper left-interests and debating them with feminine passion

    —-

    You should recognize that there are higher goals to fight for than those you do: namely those things that preserve your ability to think, act and feel as you do. Simple passions are for women.

    I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional, nor philosophy as literature rather than science.

    Perhaps had you studied common law, mathematics, physics, economics, war, and history, rather than moral fictionalism – secular religion – you might speak and argue both scientifically and with a full accounting rather than cherrypicking those intuitionistic measures that satisfy the priors of your self selected fictionalism.

    That is a masculine adult scientific criticism of your feminine , adolescent, sophomoric screed.

    Or more colloquially, you argue like a schoolgirl.

    I am too kind to suggest the host of reasons for your condition, but I am sure that besides the primary cultural export of Australians (like Canadians) being self aggrandizing virtue signaling, and perhaps some lack of paternal or martial influence, or perhaps genetics, that you have chosen the work of women for your cause. Usually a sign of conspicuous consumption by those lacking masculine attributes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 09:55:00 UTC