Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • “What *DO* humans demonstrate that they defend.” ie: what generates demand for a

    “What *DO* humans demonstrate that they defend.” ie: what generates demand for authority. What creates demand for the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 17:41:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699287317891121153

    Reply addressees: @Eupraxsophite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699273797506048004

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Tyrord

    @curtdoolittle I do not see how you derive this moral standard from your definition of property: “what we are ready to use force to defend”.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699273797506048004

  • Can we just buy our aircraft from Russia please? THey can’t afford to manufactur

    Can we just buy our aircraft from Russia please? THey can’t afford to manufacture them, and we can. We can’t seem to design anything worth flying, and they can.

    I mean. Kinda hard to beat the Abrams. But in general, you want Russian Arms and equipment whenever possible. Cheap and abundant, and free of bureaucratic meddling. The military is not a democratic thing. It never should be. And the last people that should be involved in it are congressmen.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-13 06:46:00 UTC

  • Peter, It’s troubling instead that we are experiencing the deterministic consequ

    Peter,

    It’s troubling instead that we are experiencing the deterministic consequences 100 years of innumerate policy and 50 years of pseudoscientific and contra rational policy — and we’re just larger and wealthier, with no regional competitors, so the deterministic outcome took longer to play out.

    So if the choice is between your assessment of oddity or my assessment of predictability, the explanatory power of my rather parsimonious suspicion seems like a far better truth candidate. 😉

    You weren’t there in 1980 when we planned to try this. I was. It is strange

    that immigration was the tipping point rather than state bankruptcy. But this

    event will do. 😉

    We will have our revolution one way or another. We just need the excuse

    on one hand and a viable alternative on the other.

    I am nearly done with the latter. 🙂

    This year or next. Not long now.

    Truth is enough.

    Cheers from the land of cryptic

    phflosophy.

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-12 09:46:00 UTC

  • ITS TIME TO FOLLOW INTO SOCIAL AS WE HAVE IN MEDIA Twitter is an easily replicab

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/12/milo-twitter-embarking-on-a-war-against-conservative-points-of-view/RE: ITS TIME TO FOLLOW INTO SOCIAL AS WE HAVE IN MEDIA

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/12/milo-twitter-embarking-on-a-war-against-conservative-points-of-view/

    Twitter is an easily replicable technology whose breadth would be better served by freedom of speech. However, should they choose otherwise, and continue to persecute conservative (aristocratic) points of view, they will just make it easier for those of us with knowledge and means (myself included) to create a competing network.

    Between Facebook and Twitter and Google we have sufficient combined censorship that they have created demand for an alternative venue in large enough numbers that it can be profitable.

    I suppose we should point out that Drudge, Fox and Limbaugh are far more powerful and profitable per dollar of investment.

    There is no reason that conservatives will not follow the left into social media just as we have in other media.

    We are very close to civil war in america. The sooner and the bloodier the better.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-12 09:36:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ARE THE MODERN LIBERAL WORKS *WRONG*, OR…?” —“do you think that the fou

    Q&A: ARE THE MODERN LIBERAL WORKS *WRONG*, OR…?”

    —“do you think that the foundational modern liberal works are *wrong* in the sense that they are invalid, that their premises do not hold, or that there are much larger countervailing forces not accounted for in their frameworks?”— A Reader

    I am not sure what you mean by ‘prevailing modern liberal works’.

    I say, frequently, that the enlightenment project was a failure, in each culture, because it was merely a power play.

    The anglo saxon (english) order was the most substantial invention since the roman.

    That we had constructed a set of houses that functioned as a market for the construction of commons between the classes.

    And that the church consituted the ‘lower’ house, and the aristocracy “warriros” the upper house, and the small business owners the common house. and that there was never a separation of church and state. There was a separation of powers.

    And that this model largely worked until the introduction of women, and the use of democracy to create a monopoly (single house) by which we overthrew the other houses, creating a monopoly.

    Majority rule is tyranny. always.

    We need to return to a market for the commons.

    So, in that regard, I don’t see much value in anything other than Hayek and smith for most of the enligthenment. Jefferson’s attempt to create a formal legal logic in our consitution was visoinary. But incomplete.

    I would like to correct these two errors, by creating a formal logic of law (propertariansim) a forma logic of truth (testimonialism), and restoring the houses that represent the classes, and particularly the houses for women.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-09 04:07:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE THE MOMENTUM NOW. LETS HOPE WE DON”T SCREW IT UP. Gotta transform the wo

    WE HAVE THE MOMENTUM NOW. LETS HOPE WE DON”T SCREW IT UP.

    Gotta transform the working class arguments soon.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-07 09:31:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW UNDER UNIVERSAL STANDING CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT – WITH

    NATURAL LAW UNDER UNIVERSAL STANDING CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT – WITHOUT THE NEED FOR POLYLOGISM

    (reposted from elsewhere for archival purposes)

    As far as I know, natural law, like physical law is a monopoly – in other words, there is only one ‘true’ law that we must discover.

    So I would prefer rule of law, just as I prefer scientists to not create pseudoscience (pseudo physical law), i prefer judges not to create pseudo moral science ( pseudo-natural-law.)

    With an independent judiciary, universal standing (everyone has the right to sue in matters of commons), and rule of law (every individual is subject to the same natural law without exception), I do not see how that is not competition. Competition in the market for truth.

    Conversely, a polylegal / polylogical system is undecidable, and if not identical, then at least one of the options consists of pseudo-science, if not error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit.

    Furthermore, the more competition under the single law the ‘harder’ it becomes (more empirically falsified).

    I would prefer a market for the production of commons, consisting of different houses representing different interests, consisting of members chosen by lot, deciding on the preferability of submitted proposals. And that any contract acceptable, strictly constructed, that survives legal scrutiny (criticism) is possible. (ie: dissent rather than assent). The question is only how budget is allocated between the houses. The choices are rather obvious. Precisely because the lower classes have behavior to trade and the upper classes money. (which is the whole issue here).

    Under this structure one can be barred from using a commons he does not wish to pay for.

    There are a host of reasons behind this construction but I’m not going to list all of them right now.

    And the subject is very deep. And I don’t have time to get into it right now (My product is taking all my time.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-06 16:12:00 UTC

  • YES LIBERTINISM AND ANCAPISM ARE DEAD – BECAUSE UNIVERSALISM IS DEAD. Libertinis

    YES LIBERTINISM AND ANCAPISM ARE DEAD – BECAUSE UNIVERSALISM IS DEAD.

    Libertinism and Ancapism ( a form of universalism) it’s done as a potential mainstream movement.

    That part of classical liberalism that sought equality for all is dead also.

    The intellectual capital (myself included) is on the right ( Nationalism/tribalism/culturism ).

    I suspect that it Universalism in all its instances is now dead forever.

    Natural Law, Humanism, and Transcendence may persist (I hope).

    But universalism is dead because it creates malincentives and perverse incentives that cause its own demise.

    There are no universal goods. The age of belief is done. From hiere on out it’s all empirical. And empirically speaking, we need different conditions to mature different groups.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-06 12:21:00 UTC

  • What is the Source of Political Power? Organizing Using Three Tools of Coercion.

    –“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”—

    [I] am not sure I understand this question. There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip. One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or gossip (rallying/shaming/including/ostracizing). Political power – meaning anything ranging from monopoly producer of commons to a distributed production of commons – can be constructed from any one or combination of, those methods of coercion. Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize and coerce. It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption. But then we scale. It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale. But then we scale further. And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment. But then we scale further. And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced. And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further: And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power. So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What is the Source of Political Power? Organizing Using Three Tools of Coercion.

    –“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”—

    [I] am not sure I understand this question. There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip. One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or gossip (rallying/shaming/including/ostracizing). Political power – meaning anything ranging from monopoly producer of commons to a distributed production of commons – can be constructed from any one or combination of, those methods of coercion. Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize and coerce. It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption. But then we scale. It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale. But then we scale further. And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment. But then we scale further. And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced. And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further: And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power. So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.