Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT AND WHAT WILL YOU EXCHANGE FOR IT?

    ( Once you memorize these ten points you can use them as replies one at a time as you see fit. )

    Well before we start, let’s state the obvious.

    1) Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. Cooperation ceases being valuable when alternatives are preferable. The alternatives are preferable for me and mine, regardless of whether they are preferable for you and yours. Ergo: there is no ‘we’.

    2) I cooperate with my family, kin, friends, associates, partners, and allies with whom I share mutually beneficial interests. I am not your family, kin, friend, associate, partner, or ally, but your enemy, and you are mine until demonstrated otherwise.

    3) In other words, I start with the presumption that you are of no value, or worse, a parasite or worse, a predator, and that your pleasure or pain, life or death, are irrelevant to me and mine I discover some reason that you and yours’ non-existence is preferable to your existence.

    4) I solve, and consider moral and ethical for me and mine, only that which is in the interest of me and mine, regardless of whether it is in the interest of you and yours.

    5) As such I solve only for truthful, fully informed, voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges in the absence of all attempts at harm, theft, coercion, fraud, free riding.

    6) As such criticism, ridicule, shaming, putting words in my mouth, mis-framing my statements, lying, rallying, gossiping, and threats of non-cooperation, or even open hostility are irrelevant to me. They are just attempts at theft, fraud, free riding, and deprivation of opportunity to cooperate with you – despite my and mine’s lack of interest in cooperating with you.

    7) All that matters is what you and yours will exchange with me and mine that benefits me and mine.

    8) If not, Civil War, Separation, Conquest and Genocide are preferable to the status quo.

    9) Again, Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not, and conflict is preferable to parasitism and predation. So either we are seeking a set of truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of imposition of cost upon others by externality, or you are seeking to engage in theft, fraud, parasitism, or predation.

    10) So what is it you want, and what are you willing to trade for it?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 19:30:34 UTC

  • Framing a Hostile Discourse: What Do You Want and What Will You Exchange for It?

    ( Once you memorize these ten points you can use them as replies one at a time as you see fit. ) Well before we start, let’s state the obvious. 1) Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. Cooperation ceases being valuable when alternatives are preferable. The alternatives are preferable for me and mine, regardless of whether they are preferable for you and yours. Ergo: there is no ‘we’. 2) I cooperate with my family, kin, friends, associates, partners, and allies with whom I share mutually beneficial interests. I am not your family, kin, friend, associate, partner, or ally, but your enemy, and you are mine until demonstrated otherwise. 3) In other words, I start with the presumption that you are of no value, or worse, a parasite or worse, a predator, and that your pleasure or pain, life or death, are irrelevant to me and mine I discover some reason that you and yours’ non-existence is preferable to your existence. 4) I solve, and consider moral and ethical for me and mine, only that which is in the interest of me and mine, regardless of whether it is in the interest of you and yours. 5) As such I solve only for truthful, fully informed, voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges in the absence of all attempts at harm, theft, coercion, fraud, free riding. 6) As such criticism, ridicule, shaming, putting words in my mouth, mis-framing my statements, lying, rallying, gossiping, and threats of non-cooperation, or even open hostility are irrelevant to me. They are just attempts at theft, fraud, free riding, and deprivation of opportunity to cooperate with you – despite my and mine’s lack of interest in cooperating with you. 7) All that matters is what you and yours will exchange with me and mine that benefits me and mine. 8) If not, Civil War, Separation, Conquest and Genocide are preferable to the status quo. 9) Again, Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not, and conflict is preferable to parasitism and predation. So either we are seeking a set of truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of imposition of cost upon others by externality, or you are seeking to engage in theft, fraud, parasitism, or predation. 10) So what is it you want, and what are you willing to trade for it?

  • Framing a Hostile Discourse: What Do You Want and What Will You Exchange for It?

    ( Once you memorize these ten points you can use them as replies one at a time as you see fit. ) Well before we start, let’s state the obvious. 1) Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. Cooperation ceases being valuable when alternatives are preferable. The alternatives are preferable for me and mine, regardless of whether they are preferable for you and yours. Ergo: there is no ‘we’. 2) I cooperate with my family, kin, friends, associates, partners, and allies with whom I share mutually beneficial interests. I am not your family, kin, friend, associate, partner, or ally, but your enemy, and you are mine until demonstrated otherwise. 3) In other words, I start with the presumption that you are of no value, or worse, a parasite or worse, a predator, and that your pleasure or pain, life or death, are irrelevant to me and mine I discover some reason that you and yours’ non-existence is preferable to your existence. 4) I solve, and consider moral and ethical for me and mine, only that which is in the interest of me and mine, regardless of whether it is in the interest of you and yours. 5) As such I solve only for truthful, fully informed, voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges in the absence of all attempts at harm, theft, coercion, fraud, free riding. 6) As such criticism, ridicule, shaming, putting words in my mouth, mis-framing my statements, lying, rallying, gossiping, and threats of non-cooperation, or even open hostility are irrelevant to me. They are just attempts at theft, fraud, free riding, and deprivation of opportunity to cooperate with you – despite my and mine’s lack of interest in cooperating with you. 7) All that matters is what you and yours will exchange with me and mine that benefits me and mine. 8) If not, Civil War, Separation, Conquest and Genocide are preferable to the status quo. 9) Again, Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not, and conflict is preferable to parasitism and predation. So either we are seeking a set of truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of imposition of cost upon others by externality, or you are seeking to engage in theft, fraud, parasitism, or predation. 10) So what is it you want, and what are you willing to trade for it?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME,

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME, THEY ARE NOT ABLE. ARISTOCRACY IS GOVERNANCE BY THE ABLE.

    —“Do you ever worry that you’re making enemies out of people not worth making enemies out of? Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry than the largely apathetic Christians in the world today?”–Collin Turney

    I worry about what is true, since what is true is the reason for our group evolutionary success. If something is not true, I do not make exceptions, because i fail the test of reciprocity with those who also engage in comforting falsehoods (the left).

    There is a cost of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. It is intolerance for falsehood. Even the falsehoods we cherish.

    —“That doesn’t answer my question. Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry? You’ve been frying this fish for how long?I’m not so sure your return on investment is too good, in that you have most likely lost many good potential students who realistically would be on board with most of what you say…It doesn’t seem like good optics if you’re trying to gain a following.”—Collin Turney

    There are very few readers of the WSJ. But they are the only readers that matter. There are many readers of all other media.. But they don’t matter.

    The kind of people that follow falsehoods are not the kind of people that matter. What matters is the people who can enforce a constitution of natural law.

    I don’t appeal to the gutter.

    —“The point is to shift the Overton window, not to ignore it.”—Collin Turney

    That’s someone else’s problem. My problem is how to govern once we have power. That’s a problem no one else as solved.

    In fact. I don’t see anyone doing anything meaningful. And that all progress is being achieved by nothing more than demographics and the duration of frustration by both sides.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 16:11:06 UTC

  • TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME, THEY ARE NOT ABLE. ARISTOCRACY IS

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME, THEY ARE NOT ABLE. ARISTOCRACY IS GOVERNANCE BY THE ABLE.

    —“Do you ever worry that you’re making enemies out of people not worth making enemies out of? Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry than the largely apathetic Christians in the world today?”–Collin Turney

    I worry about what is true, since what is true is the reason for our group evolutionary success. If something is not true, I do not make exceptions, because i fail the test of reciprocity with those who also engage in comforting falsehoods (the left).

    There is a cost of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. It is intolerance for falsehood. Even the falsehoods we cherish.

    —“That doesn’t answer my question. Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry? You’ve been frying this fish for how long?I’m not so sure your return on investment is too good, in that you have most likely lost many good potential students who realistically would be on board with most of what you say…It doesn’t seem like good optics if you’re trying to gain a following.”—Collin Turney

    There are very few readers of the WSJ. But they are the only readers that matter. There are many readers of all other media.. But they don’t matter.

    The kind of people that follow falsehoods are not the kind of people that matter. What matters is the people who can enforce a constitution of natural law.

    I don’t appeal to the gutter.

    —“The point is to shift the Overton window, not to ignore it.”—Collin Turney

    That’s someone else’s problem. My problem is how to govern once we have power. That’s a problem no one else as solved.

    In fact. I don’t see anyone doing anything meaningful. And that all progress is being achieved by nothing more than demographics and the duration of frustration by both sides.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 12:11:00 UTC

  • We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to

    We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to classical (production/merit), to liberal (periods of wealth/redistribution), and yet to define a means of transferring between them any better than that of the Romans.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 00:29:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015392322991939584

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PER

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON CIRCUMSTANCES

    We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to classical (production/merit), to liberal (periods of wealth/redistribution), and yet to define a means of transferring between them any better than that of the Romans.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 00:29:19 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post. RICHARD HEATHEN ACHIEVES ENLIGHTENMENT. 😉 —“I’v

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    RICHARD HEATHEN ACHIEVES ENLIGHTENMENT. 😉

    —“I’ve come to the conclusion that every form of government or societal organization (for those of you still clinging to AnCapism) will have negative externalities as a consequence of said system. From socialism/communism to fascism/national socialism and liberal democracy and radical capitalism, all of these will produce some type of negative externality. The true believers of each system will protest, and declare that theirs is the one true faith, a universal truth fit for all men, and all circumstances, but this remains true. One only has to look at the rise and fulfillment of each of these systems, and how they answered a certain question, need, or desire of those living at that time each system was ascendant. Therefore the question of our age is not what is the most perfect system, but what type of system is most suited to our current circumstance and thus fulfills the inner imperative of our age.”— Richard Heathen

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 00:27:51 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T DO JACK. OK? HERE IS THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T DO JACK. OK? HERE IS THE DATA

    —“Of course, such assertions don’t hold up to empirical scrutiny. Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia, only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.

    Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the billion-dollar Clinton machine — the epitome of political establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an out-of-touch liberal they didn’t like and couldn’t trust?”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-06 23:21:48 UTC

  • THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON

    THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON CIRCUMSTANCES

    We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to classical (production/merit), to liberal (periods of wealth/redistribution), and yet to define a means of transferring between them any better than that of the Romans.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-06 20:29:00 UTC