Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Define Liberalism

    Dec 28, 2019, 9:37 AM

    —“Liberalism is ideology that elevates individual above everything else by definition (communism – class, fascism – race/nation state). Liberalism seeks to free an individual from any constraints – ethnicity, class, nationality, and as of recent, gender, and eventually, humanity.”—Alex Pryazhnikov

    So you mean Jewish cosmopolitanism, marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and Christian universalism continuing the Abrahamic tradition, and not liberalism or classical liberalism, meaning rule of law that limits the state. You mean ‘liberal’ in the American (Jewish, leftist) sense.

    Liberal or Progressive, in the Jewish Libertine, Comunist, Socialist sense

    So ok. That’s the postwar definition of the term.

    |Liberal| liberalism > classical liberalism > libertarianism

    Because the left appropriate the term ‘liberalism’ to mean universalism, cosmopolitanism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, to UNDERMINE western rule of law.

  • No, You Don”t Get It

    Jan 8, 2020, 10:02 PM I don’t get to ‘appeal’ to markets. The law doesn’t do that. We use the law to create policy that appeals to markets WITHIN the natural law. I CANT compromise without compromising the law itself. So no. Propertarianism isn’t an ideology or philosophy it’s just a formal logic of the cognitive, linguistic, psychological, and social sciences. The Propertarian constitution is a movement. We can use Propertarianism to create movements. The movement is the restoration and renaissance of western civilization. We can compromise on policy. But we can’t compromise on truth and reciprocity. So we have a harder job than theologians, sophists, ideologists, philosophers, pseudoscientists, and outright liars. (But I do reserve the right to mess around like everyone else does…. lol )

  • No, You Don”t Get It

    Jan 8, 2020, 10:02 PM I don’t get to ‘appeal’ to markets. The law doesn’t do that. We use the law to create policy that appeals to markets WITHIN the natural law. I CANT compromise without compromising the law itself. So no. Propertarianism isn’t an ideology or philosophy it’s just a formal logic of the cognitive, linguistic, psychological, and social sciences. The Propertarian constitution is a movement. We can use Propertarianism to create movements. The movement is the restoration and renaissance of western civilization. We can compromise on policy. But we can’t compromise on truth and reciprocity. So we have a harder job than theologians, sophists, ideologists, philosophers, pseudoscientists, and outright liars. (But I do reserve the right to mess around like everyone else does…. lol )

  • We Know the Answer Now.

    Jan 9, 2020, 9:10 AM

    —“You lose me totally here. It’s ALL about race.”—Cortny

    That’s because you’re conflating two issues. There is no contradiction between ethnonationalism for all to produce optimums for all, and eugenics for all to reduce the worst for all. In other words under truth (science), under reciprocity and rule of law, with a majority middle class at or above say 105, there is nothing intrinsically bad about any group of humans that prevents them from all the opportunities of western civilization. “All happy families are the same, all unhappy families are different” and “All domesticatable animals are the same, all undomesticatable animals are different” both express the same argument: a number of things have to go right, any one of which can go wrong and produce failure. RECIPE 1. A Heroic Narrative of Truth, Duty, Oath and Contract, Heroism, Excellence, Achievement, Mindfulness and The direction of dominance expression to the production of commons. 2. Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, The individual as the subject of Law and the Family as the subject of Policy. 3. Aristotelianism: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Testimonial Truth (science) 4. Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity and markets in everything, including a Market for the Suppression of parasitism in court 5. A Power Distribution of law, Pareto Distribution of Capital, and Nash Distribution of Returns. 6. A majority genetic middle class and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclass (unproductive). Diversity is a bad. Proximity causes hostility. Both undermine the willingness of peoples to devote resources to the commons and maximize the tragedy of the commons. We know the answer now. The question is, what people will pursue it, and what people will continue to be a drag on mankind?

  • We Know the Answer Now.

    Jan 9, 2020, 9:10 AM

    —“You lose me totally here. It’s ALL about race.”—Cortny

    That’s because you’re conflating two issues. There is no contradiction between ethnonationalism for all to produce optimums for all, and eugenics for all to reduce the worst for all. In other words under truth (science), under reciprocity and rule of law, with a majority middle class at or above say 105, there is nothing intrinsically bad about any group of humans that prevents them from all the opportunities of western civilization. “All happy families are the same, all unhappy families are different” and “All domesticatable animals are the same, all undomesticatable animals are different” both express the same argument: a number of things have to go right, any one of which can go wrong and produce failure. RECIPE 1. A Heroic Narrative of Truth, Duty, Oath and Contract, Heroism, Excellence, Achievement, Mindfulness and The direction of dominance expression to the production of commons. 2. Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, The individual as the subject of Law and the Family as the subject of Policy. 3. Aristotelianism: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Testimonial Truth (science) 4. Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity and markets in everything, including a Market for the Suppression of parasitism in court 5. A Power Distribution of law, Pareto Distribution of Capital, and Nash Distribution of Returns. 6. A majority genetic middle class and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclass (unproductive). Diversity is a bad. Proximity causes hostility. Both undermine the willingness of peoples to devote resources to the commons and maximize the tragedy of the commons. We know the answer now. The question is, what people will pursue it, and what people will continue to be a drag on mankind?

  • We Can Learn Something from The Soviets – but Not the Communists

    We Can Learn Something from The Soviets – but Not the Communists https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/we-can-learn-something-from-the-soviets-but-not-the-communists/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:23:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266767237404405760

  • We Can Learn Something from The Soviets – but Not the Communists

    Jan 15, 2020, 8:51 AM

    —” (with irony) Today’s Youth explains that the economic failures of communism didn’t have much to do with the Soviet Union’s demise.”—Steve Sailer @Steve_Sailer

    The Soviets used the fact that Russians had been serfs only decades before – and most still lived like serfs – and migrated them to a militarized labor force – saving the cost of market prices for labor, redirecting that savings to the funding commons. Then the people adapted to incentives: black markets in all. They reverted to serf behavior: minimum production. But Soviet education, science, and commons production were far ahead of USA’s. The error is probably on both sides in that the market and private production are optimums for the middle and up, and non-market for physical commons better for working-class and down: serving each other. We (economists) know perfectly well why the socialist and communist systems don’t and can’t ever work: (a) incentives produce declines in production in exchange for increases in corruption free riding and rent. (b) economic calculation of investment is impossible. ( c) “Humans”. We can end the monopoly(equality) presumption of the economy. Historically we used barbarian > “slave” > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, as progressions of market independence (not power). We don’t think of these as different economies, but they were. We need 3+ economies. We’ve tried to force too many people at the bottom into the middle class because that was the reason for european success – culling the lower classes. We’ve bred and imported vast underclasses undermining european market majoritarianism. And we’ve recreated demand for “serfdom”. There are plenty of people who would exchange voting rights for economic dependency and some sort of equality while maintaining access to the goods and services produced by market goods.

  • We Can Learn Something from The Soviets – but Not the Communists

    Jan 15, 2020, 8:51 AM

    —” (with irony) Today’s Youth explains that the economic failures of communism didn’t have much to do with the Soviet Union’s demise.”—Steve Sailer @Steve_Sailer

    The Soviets used the fact that Russians had been serfs only decades before – and most still lived like serfs – and migrated them to a militarized labor force – saving the cost of market prices for labor, redirecting that savings to the funding commons. Then the people adapted to incentives: black markets in all. They reverted to serf behavior: minimum production. But Soviet education, science, and commons production were far ahead of USA’s. The error is probably on both sides in that the market and private production are optimums for the middle and up, and non-market for physical commons better for working-class and down: serving each other. We (economists) know perfectly well why the socialist and communist systems don’t and can’t ever work: (a) incentives produce declines in production in exchange for increases in corruption free riding and rent. (b) economic calculation of investment is impossible. ( c) “Humans”. We can end the monopoly(equality) presumption of the economy. Historically we used barbarian > “slave” > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, as progressions of market independence (not power). We don’t think of these as different economies, but they were. We need 3+ economies. We’ve tried to force too many people at the bottom into the middle class because that was the reason for european success – culling the lower classes. We’ve bred and imported vast underclasses undermining european market majoritarianism. And we’ve recreated demand for “serfdom”. There are plenty of people who would exchange voting rights for economic dependency and some sort of equality while maintaining access to the goods and services produced by market goods.

  • Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator,

    Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator, a judge, a king. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/every-man-a-father-a-craftsman-a-soldier-a-sheriff-a-warrior-a-legislator-a-judge-a-king/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:21:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266766611576487941

  • Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator, a judge, a king.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:29 AM

    —“Curt I think you need to stay home because after the shit gets hot this country’s going to need a leader because a lot of the people on the right are getting tired of Trumps BS because he’s so pro-israel and pro-immigrant”—Robert Shumaker

    If I want street creed with those that cannot understand my work or even john’s simplification of it, I have to show I’m not pontificating from an armchair. I have to go regardless of the cost. Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator, a judge, a king.