Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • don’t dis the house of Windsor. Dis monarchy for ambitions. Kings like judges mu

    don’t dis the house of Windsor. Dis monarchy for ambitions. Kings like judges must have no ambitions. Rule don’t lead.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 16:03:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812327857150193664

    Reply addressees: @bobbrad6 @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015363298881537

    IN REPLY TO:

    @bobbrad6

    @AnnCoulter that would be leap forward for Charles as his family system is still in 1800’s

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015363298881537

  • Monarchies have a better record than republics, and republics better than democr

    Monarchies have a better record than republics, and republics better than democracies. Secret is no-monopoly: combine all three.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 16:01:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812327207750303744

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    Prince Charles warns we’re returning to dark days of 1930s. Listening to genetically retarded “royalty” is a return to the dark ages.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680

  • Perfect Govt: Monarchy/veto:long-term, +republic/economy:mid-term, +democracy/sp

    Perfect Govt: Monarchy/veto:long-term, +republic/economy:mid-term, +democracy/spending:short-term, +Rule of Natural Law:always.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 15:59:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812326804186923008

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    Prince Charles warns we’re returning to dark days of 1930s. Listening to genetically retarded “royalty” is a return to the dark ages.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680

  • Dump the f35. Fail

    Dump the f35. Fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-21 22:38:00 UTC

  • TRUMP WON THE POPULAR VOTE, JUST NOT THE CALIFORNIA POPULAR VOTE. —“Clinton’s

    TRUMP WON THE POPULAR VOTE, JUST NOT THE CALIFORNIA POPULAR VOTE.

    —“Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state: California. Clinton has more than a 4-million-vote plurality over Trump there. In the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia, Trump actually has a 1.7-million-popular-vote plurality over Clinton.”— James E. Campbell

    IN OTHER WORDS, THE ELECTORAL VOTE SYSTEM DID ITS JOB OF PREVENTING ONE RADICAL STATE FROM OPPRESSING THE REST.

    James E. Campbell is a UB Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, and is the author of “Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America”.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-hillary-clinton-supporters-need-to-quit-whining-about-the-electoral-college-2016-11-30

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 11:13:00 UTC

  • Most people who tell me that they have some great political strategy have neithe

    Most people who tell me that they have some great political strategy have neither.

    There is no cunning in politics. It’s just war by lower cost means.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 13:49:00 UTC

  • I doubt that the progressive program to infantilize males grasps that they just

    I doubt that the progressive program to infantilize males grasps that they just make it easier for those of us who weren’t, to conquer them. And they have no one to call upon to help them. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 10:54:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?

    CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?

    I know. I know. Some of you are overconfident evangelicals for your cause. But please, save us both the tedium and ask questions if you don’t understand what I (we) talk about. Please don’t think you’re going to put together a witty argument. A cunning refutation. A creative deceit. It won’t happen. It just won’t. I’ve been working on this problem for a very long time now. And you just are wasting both our time.

    There is a reason everyone seems to progress from classical liberal or conservative, to libertarian, to ancap, to nrx, to alt-right to propertarianism.

    So on your journey, your fellow travelers ask that you impose the lowest cost upon us. Just ask questions. “We argue this, you argue that, why do you think you’re right?” is a really good way of asking questions.

    Hoppe is no dummy. Rothbard was no dummy. Mises was no dummy. Hayek and Popper were not dummies. If some of these people were fooled by some of the rhetoric, you shouldn’t feel bad for being fooled by it either.

    We didn’t have a sufficient understanding of what we call the scientific method until very recently. We didn’t have an undrestanding of computability until very recently. We didn’t have an understanding of truth until recently. So these people were prisoners of their eras. We are the beneficiaries of an additional generation or two.

    Propertarianism is a profoundly thorough system of philosophy(decidability) as far as the negative(decidability) is concerned – I rely on literature for the positive(ideation and inspiration). I don’t do all that much inspiration. I just do true and false.

    If you want liberty in fact, rather than some semblance of liberty by permission there is only one way to create it: Sovereignty+Heroism -> Natural Law -> Markets In Everything => Conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Subsidy.

    That’s how it is. Either you can create a polity of self sustaining non-parasitic peoples in a territory that can serve as a market, and one that other peoples will tolerate, or you won’t. You can’t do it by low trust ethics. it’s not complicated.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 17:22:00 UTC

  • The alt-right consider being called Nazis a badge of honor. 1) You cannot shame

    The alt-right consider being called Nazis a badge of honor.

    1) You cannot shame them. If you resort to rallying and shaming they consider you to have demonstrated their point: for the ‘new right’ world view, the left speaks nothing but error, bias, pseudoscience and lies and rallies and shames, to cover error, bias, pseudoscience and lies, in order to obtain by force of government that which cannot be obtained by voluntary cooperation.

    2) They counter rallying and shaming with ridicule. (Green frogs, Memes, Trolling, etc). And in some cases they have adopted the left’s exploitation of and use of falsehoods.

    3) They are adopting the digital age’s equivalent of the left’s community organizing. And it is working.

    4) So, just as the islamic fundamentalists have adopted the techniques of the Marxists, the new right has adopted the techniques of the Marxists. In other words, they are seeking to use the techniques invented by the left to create a revolution where the left failed, and instead, achieved through incrementalism in law, incrementalism in education, and incrementalism in immigration.

    My expectation is that they will continue this cycle, since the status quo always presents an easy target of criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 10:28:00 UTC

  • DON’T NEED TO ADVOCATE FOR THE ENEMY – YOU ONLY NEED TO FAIL TO DEFEAT THEM. (CO

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/12/many-people-american-dream-vanishing.htmlYOU DON’T NEED TO ADVOCATE FOR THE ENEMY – YOU ONLY NEED TO FAIL TO DEFEAT THEM. (CONSERVATIVES FAILED)

    —“Goldwater, Reagan, and conservatives delivered the US into socialism?”—

    It’s more that While Darwin, Spencer, Weber and Durkheim were correct in their reevaluation of man, Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, Bridgman and many others failed to solve the question of social science, and social pseudoscience of Marx and Keynes was more attractive to enfranchised women, underclasses, and empowering of the political classes.

    Moreover, the scientists having failed, we got Goldwater, Kirk, Buckley, Kristol, and Strauss – whose work can be considered, at best pop-moralizing on the german continental model: attempting to recreate the piety of the church in secular verse.

    And they failed. Their work cannot even be considered pseudoscience. Certainly Strauss can be considered pseudo-rationalism. But Kirk, Buckley and Kristol’s very existence as influencers is an admission of failure of the conservative movement to produce a technological equivalent of leftism.

    And why? Because the truth is incompatible with democracy: The function of western civilization was systematically eugenic. We are very conscious of truth. Our preoccupation with Truth is the reason for our civilizatin’s rapid advancement in the ancient and modern worlds. But the application of truth produces eugenic outcomes. Which is why the left must lie, and the right cannot tell the truth.

    —“An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. A formal logic provides language for the testing (criticism) of relations for internal consistency (falsification). A science provides a formal process and instrumentation for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.”— Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-10 14:03:00 UTC