Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Q&A: “Curt, What’s your thinking on the possible Brexit?” It’s pretty simple. Ev

    Q&A: “Curt, What’s your thinking on the possible Brexit?”

    It’s pretty simple. Ever since the ’92-95 tipping point, we’ve had a lot of secessionist movements building and seen nationalism returning, but we needed a test case to break the dike and say ‘its possible’. And while the Swiss were the first leak, the Brits have done it, and now I think we can consider devolution of massive federalism, globalism, and anti-Europeanism, a possible reality.

    “Let a thousand nations bloom.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-24 00:37:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES CANNOT BE HONEST UNDER DEMOCRACY Why? Conservatism is a eugenic so

    CONSERVATIVES CANNOT BE HONEST UNDER DEMOCRACY

    Why? Conservatism is a eugenic social order. And the ‘good’ families are dwarfed in number by the ‘not good’ families.

    Western success is due in no small part to its adoption of eugenic institutions and policies in every walk of life. Puritan american was an attempt to create a eugenic civilization.

    But America, like every other attempt at creating a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient understanding of the reasons for the west’s rise; insufficient honesty in its constitution; and insufficient violence to preserve it.

    And this is why traditionalism and conservatism in all their variations have failed. Conservatism is a deterministically eugenic social, political, legal, and economic system that arose in the era of productive scarcity.

    Majoritarian democracy, redistributive socialism, and feminism are deterministically dysgenic social, political, legal, and economic systems that arose in the era of productive plenty.

    Western eugenics were negative: constraining the lower classes and devoting resources to the reproduction of the middle and upper classes. They were not positive in any sense: arranged breeding. This conflation of negative eugenics and positive eugenics is what brought an end to the movement. Even if medically induced positive eugenics is probably a future we can assume will expand.

    Assuming that we must preserve the means of constructing commons, and assuming we want to preserve prosperity and western creativity, we have two choices: we can either remove the franchise from the non-producers and restore the family to the central object of policy, or we can construct houses for the production of commons that once again reflect that interests of the genders and classes. The first will create an oligarchy open to corruption. The second will create a market whereby genders and classes cannot impose costs upon one another without benefit in exchange.

    If we fail to do the second, we will be forced to do the first. And if we fail to do the first, we will no longer exist as a civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, UKraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-23 05:31:00 UTC

  • Q&A: War and Interventionism

    —“Q&A: I am curious to know how war and interventionism would be dealt with within a propertarian polity. Anarchists are obviously dogmatically supportive of “non-interventionism” but do you find this a viable position?”— Great question. We can address the general topic of war on one hand, and the criteria for moral war on the other. ONE. 1) as for war, it is the most costly and consequential commons that a group can produce. It’s is, like norms and law, a necessary commons if for no other reason than it is the sole criteria upon which sovereignty ( control of ones destiny ) depends. In the case of Liberty if you are not sufficiently capable of denying others dominance over you, then regardless of your opinion, you have not Liberty but permission. It is only through organised violence that we obtain Liberty in fact rather than permission. So in this sense I can find no other argument of any kind other than the capacity for war is necessary for Liberty, and that the militia is the only effective producer of Liberty, even if led by a minority of professional warriors. TWO Now Liberty will always be the desire of the minority. It is an aristocratic and bourgeoise desire. The majority of men lack the ability to compete in any sphere of life and as such desire entertainment, consumption and security, not Liberty. So as a minority, those who seek Liberty have, and must, always seek to expand their numbers. Liberty is and can only be constructed by the reciprocal insurance of life and property – creating legal equals where no other equality exists. So any man that offers this contract for reciprocal insurance regardless of stature, increases our numbers and increases equality under law even if vastly unequal in ability and property. THREE So that any request by other peoples to join the group of reciprocally insured will increase our numbers, our strength, strength, our resources, and our territory — and consequently deny illiberalism over those people, resources and territory. Increasing our competitiveness and decreasing the competitiveness of the illiberal. So any request for reciprocal insurance is one that we must accept as long as we can succeed in it. FOUR Now we come to the problem of conquest: the involuntary imposition of rule. If other are a constant problem of immigration, conversion, cheating, raiding, or harming, even if they do not conduct the war of states, then their conquest and rule and domestication is objectively moral. FIVE Now we come to the problem of the less moral or the primitive and impossible to cooperate with. Any group less objectively moral ( gypsies ) less objectively rational ( Muslims / women ) less objectively truthful ((( you know who ))), is a candidate for domestication. So it is not a question of whether violence is employed but whether one domesticates and rules, or whether one conquers, damages, and exploits. If we are eliminating parasitism and increasing productivity then since morality is reducible to the universal incentive to cooperate productively, then exercise of violence is warranted. LASTLY. In my experience libertines and libertarians are nearly always social misfits unable to obtain status signals in the status quo equal to their perception of self worth. In other words they are largely parasites trying to escape the very high cost of creating the high trust polity that grants them Liberty to live parasitically off the commons just as leftists want to live parasitically off private production. Thanks for the great question. Curt Doolittle.

  • Q&A: War and Interventionism

    —“Q&A: I am curious to know how war and interventionism would be dealt with within a propertarian polity. Anarchists are obviously dogmatically supportive of “non-interventionism” but do you find this a viable position?”— Great question. We can address the general topic of war on one hand, and the criteria for moral war on the other. ONE. 1) as for war, it is the most costly and consequential commons that a group can produce. It’s is, like norms and law, a necessary commons if for no other reason than it is the sole criteria upon which sovereignty ( control of ones destiny ) depends. In the case of Liberty if you are not sufficiently capable of denying others dominance over you, then regardless of your opinion, you have not Liberty but permission. It is only through organised violence that we obtain Liberty in fact rather than permission. So in this sense I can find no other argument of any kind other than the capacity for war is necessary for Liberty, and that the militia is the only effective producer of Liberty, even if led by a minority of professional warriors. TWO Now Liberty will always be the desire of the minority. It is an aristocratic and bourgeoise desire. The majority of men lack the ability to compete in any sphere of life and as such desire entertainment, consumption and security, not Liberty. So as a minority, those who seek Liberty have, and must, always seek to expand their numbers. Liberty is and can only be constructed by the reciprocal insurance of life and property – creating legal equals where no other equality exists. So any man that offers this contract for reciprocal insurance regardless of stature, increases our numbers and increases equality under law even if vastly unequal in ability and property. THREE So that any request by other peoples to join the group of reciprocally insured will increase our numbers, our strength, strength, our resources, and our territory — and consequently deny illiberalism over those people, resources and territory. Increasing our competitiveness and decreasing the competitiveness of the illiberal. So any request for reciprocal insurance is one that we must accept as long as we can succeed in it. FOUR Now we come to the problem of conquest: the involuntary imposition of rule. If other are a constant problem of immigration, conversion, cheating, raiding, or harming, even if they do not conduct the war of states, then their conquest and rule and domestication is objectively moral. FIVE Now we come to the problem of the less moral or the primitive and impossible to cooperate with. Any group less objectively moral ( gypsies ) less objectively rational ( Muslims / women ) less objectively truthful ((( you know who ))), is a candidate for domestication. So it is not a question of whether violence is employed but whether one domesticates and rules, or whether one conquers, damages, and exploits. If we are eliminating parasitism and increasing productivity then since morality is reducible to the universal incentive to cooperate productively, then exercise of violence is warranted. LASTLY. In my experience libertines and libertarians are nearly always social misfits unable to obtain status signals in the status quo equal to their perception of self worth. In other words they are largely parasites trying to escape the very high cost of creating the high trust polity that grants them Liberty to live parasitically off the commons just as leftists want to live parasitically off private production. Thanks for the great question. Curt Doolittle.

  • Q&A: I am curious to know how war and interventionism would be dealt with within

    Q&A: I am curious to know

    how war and interventionism would be dealt with within a propertarian

    polity. Anarchists are obviously dogmatically supportive of

    “non-interventionism” but do you find this a viable position?

    Great question.

    We can address the general topic of war on one hand, and the criteria for moral war on the other.

    ONE.

    1) as for war, it is the most costly and consequential commons that a group can produce. It’s is, like norms and law, a necessary commons if for no other reason than it is the sole criteria upon which sovereignty ( control of ones destiny ) depends.

    In the case of Liberty if you are not sufficiently capable of denying others dominance over you, then regardless of your opinion, you have not Liberty but permission. It is only through organised violence that we obtain Liberty in fact rather than permission.

    So in this sense I can find no other argument of any kind other than the capacity for war is necessary for Liberty, and that the militia is the only effective producer of Liberty, even if led by a minority of professional warriors.

    STEP TWO

    Now Liberty will always be the desire of the minority. It is an aristocratic and bourgeoise desire. The majority of men lack the ability to compete in any sphere of life and as such desire entertainment, consumption and security, not Liberty.

    So as a minority, those who seek Liberty have, and must, always seek to expand their numbers.

    Liberty is and can only be constructed by the reciprocal insurance of life and property – creating legal equals where no other equality exists.

    So any man that offers this contract for reciprocal insurance regardless of stature, increases our numbers and increases equality under law even if vastly unequal in ability and property.

    THREE

    So that any request by other peoples to join the group of reciprocally insured will increase our numbers, our strength, strength, our resources, and our territory — and consequently deny illiberalism over those people, resources and territory. Increasing our competitiveness and decreasing the competitiveness of the illiberal.

    So any request for reciprocal insurance is one that we must accept as long as we can succeed in it.

    FOUR

    Now we come to the problem of conquest: the involuntary imposition of rule.

    If other are a constant problem of immigration, conversion, cheating, raiding, or harming, even if they do not conduct the war of states, then their conquest and rule and domestication is objectively moral.

    FIVE

    Now we come to the problem of the less moral or the primitive and impossible to cooperate with.

    Any group less objectively moral ( gypsies ) less objectively rational ( Muslims / women ) less objectively truthful ((( you know who ))), is a candidate for domestication.

    So it is not a question of whether violence is employed but whether one domesticates and rules, or whether one conquers, damages, and exploits.

    If we are eliminating parasitism and increasing productivity then since morality is reducible to the universal incentive to cooperate productively, then exercise of violence is warranted.

    LASTLY.

    In my experience libertines and libertarians are nearly always social misfits unable to obtain status signals in the status quo equal to their perception of self worth.

    In other words they are largely parasites trying to escape the very high cost of creating the high trust polity that grants them Liberty to live parasitically off the commons just as leftists want to live parasitically off private production.

    Thanks for the great question.

    Curt Doolittle.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-20 08:31:00 UTC

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • (UPDATE: I GOT OWNED AGAIN. ITS A FAKE WITH A GREAT URL) ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ORDER

    (UPDATE: I GOT OWNED AGAIN. ITS A FAKE WITH A GREAT URL)

    ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ORDER

    I suppose Obama does not understand that (a) he just signed his own death warrant, (b) he set the stage for the full reversal of all his actions while in office and eliminated the executive order forever, and (c) he just gave us what we wanted: a justification for civil war by the last most desperate act of circumventing the congress and issuing law by decree.

    Trump doesn’t matter. He’s a distraction. The revolution comes. And it will be bloody.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 14:37:00 UTC

  • Words Define, Money Incents, Violence Prevents

    —“Words define the problem. Money creates positive incentives to solve the problem. Violence removes parasitic alternatives to solving the problem.”—Con Eli Khan   Words can sometimes solve the problem. Money will often solve what words cannot. When money won’t solve the problem, only violence will.  

  • Words Define, Money Incents, Violence Prevents

    —“Words define the problem. Money creates positive incentives to solve the problem. Violence removes parasitic alternatives to solving the problem.”—Con Eli Khan   Words can sometimes solve the problem. Money will often solve what words cannot. When money won’t solve the problem, only violence will.