Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers

  • We Win When They Fire The First Shot

    We Win When They Fire The First Shot https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/we-win-when-they-fire-the-first-shot/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:32:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265033128269303808

  • We Win When They Fire The First Shot

    Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?

    1. The minute they fire on you they lose – and the whole american empire and it’s entire world ‘brand’ and influence collapses. You want them to fire on you. You just want to minimize losses even if you generate heroes whose names end up on monuments.

    2. Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.

    3. It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.

    4. Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting

    5. Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.

    6. A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.

    7. The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.

    8. Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.

    9. If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.

    10. Every single day you siege, you learn.

    All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit

  • We Win When They Fire The First Shot

    Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?

    1. The minute they fire on you they lose – and the whole american empire and it’s entire world ‘brand’ and influence collapses. You want them to fire on you. You just want to minimize losses even if you generate heroes whose names end up on monuments.

    2. Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.

    3. It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.

    4. Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting

    5. Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.

    6. A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.

    7. The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.

    8. Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.

    9. If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.

    10. Every single day you siege, you learn.

    All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit

  • Our Strategy

    Our Strategy https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/our-strategy/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:08:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265027053293834242

  • Our Strategy

    Jan 21, 2020, 10:49 AM

    So, the strategy for the Right is to enumerate a set of ‘rights’ and demonstrate to demand our ‘rights’ including the right to self determination, the preservation of our culture, traditions, institutions, language, religion.

  • Our Strategy

    Jan 21, 2020, 10:49 AM

    So, the strategy for the Right is to enumerate a set of ‘rights’ and demonstrate to demand our ‘rights’ including the right to self determination, the preservation of our culture, traditions, institutions, language, religion.

  • Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy

    Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM

    —“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–

    Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?

    —“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—

    1. Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.

    2. You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)

    3. Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.

    4. Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.

    5. Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉

    6. Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.

    7. What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.

    8. Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
      Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )

    9. I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.

    Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.

  • Some Thoughts on The Richmond Rally

    Jan 21, 2020, 4:20 PM by Julian le Roux

    1. We couldn’t have hoped for a better outcome.
    2. I was expecting much smaller attendance and at least some serious conflict.
    3. Amazing demonstration of the level of self-control, civilization (and conviviality to boot) amongst the Right.
    4. Further to (3), I imagine the Left / media will have a very hard time manipulating or memory-holing such a unambiguous message.
    5. Overwhelming safety-in-numbers should provide a huge boost to morale and willingness to participate.
    6. The show of force has ensured that no-one can claim that they weren’t respectfully warned about the Rights’ commitment and seriousness. The fact that a clear message has been sent, supports the Right moral justification should future events require stronger action.
    7. The ball has moved forward substantially for Peaceful Separation, and the rally has opened up new avenues to normalize that narrative.
    8. It’s become easier to assert that the Right Desires Peace.
    9. Again, being able to claim the mantle of Peace helps to draw in more normies and shift them towards our position.

  • Some Thoughts on The Richmond Rally

    Jan 21, 2020, 4:20 PM by Julian le Roux

    1. We couldn’t have hoped for a better outcome.
    2. I was expecting much smaller attendance and at least some serious conflict.
    3. Amazing demonstration of the level of self-control, civilization (and conviviality to boot) amongst the Right.
    4. Further to (3), I imagine the Left / media will have a very hard time manipulating or memory-holing such a unambiguous message.
    5. Overwhelming safety-in-numbers should provide a huge boost to morale and willingness to participate.
    6. The show of force has ensured that no-one can claim that they weren’t respectfully warned about the Rights’ commitment and seriousness. The fact that a clear message has been sent, supports the Right moral justification should future events require stronger action.
    7. The ball has moved forward substantially for Peaceful Separation, and the rally has opened up new avenues to normalize that narrative.
    8. It’s become easier to assert that the Right Desires Peace.
    9. Again, being able to claim the mantle of Peace helps to draw in more normies and shift them towards our position.