Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • DRONES HOVERING 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) b

    DRONES HOVERING

    1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones.

    2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then

    3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes.

    4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines.

    So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:35:00 UTC

  • The Market Determines The Level of Suppression Necessary for a Stateless Polity

    [N]ow, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES. Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy. This is natural law.

  • The Market Determines The Level of Suppression Necessary for a Stateless Polity

    [N]ow, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES. Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy. This is natural law.

  • The Propertarian (Doolittle) Scientific Political Chart

    [T]he only meaningful notion of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that I can state existentially is k-selection (right/masculine ), vs r-selection (left/feminine-universal) since these are opposing strategies with libertarianism (voluntary cooperation) achievable as a compromise between the two strategies. (that is how I see we minority libertarians: providing a compromise between the genders through voluntary cooperation). As far as I know we must talk in at least three dimensions to discuss options on political orders. 1 - Organization of production - distribution of property 2 - Organization of production of the commons - the fruits of production 3 - Organization of Reproduction - National(kin) or Corporate(kin-independent) And to construct these organizations we require incentives: 4 - Weapon of Influence (methods of organization) So it is indeed impossible to construct an r-selected order non-parasitically. Because that’s precisely what it means. And it is so because we must produce incentive to engage in costly production if we are human (k-selection), even though the herd must just graze on whatever grass is available (r-selection). This is the Doolittle chart, not the Nolan Chart. This chart unifies all disciplines from biology to politics to economics. This chart is consistently explanatory across all political orders. So as far as I know any OTHER method of representing the organization of Production(consumption), commons(investment) and reproduction(perpetuation) is a distraction for the purpose of achieving an alternate end other than the true and moral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Propertarian (Doolittle) Scientific Political Chart

    [T]he only meaningful notion of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that I can state existentially is k-selection (right/masculine ), vs r-selection (left/feminine-universal) since these are opposing strategies with libertarianism (voluntary cooperation) achievable as a compromise between the two strategies. (that is how I see we minority libertarians: providing a compromise between the genders through voluntary cooperation). As far as I know we must talk in at least three dimensions to discuss options on political orders. 1 - Organization of production - distribution of property 2 - Organization of production of the commons - the fruits of production 3 - Organization of Reproduction - National(kin) or Corporate(kin-independent) And to construct these organizations we require incentives: 4 - Weapon of Influence (methods of organization) So it is indeed impossible to construct an r-selected order non-parasitically. Because that’s precisely what it means. And it is so because we must produce incentive to engage in costly production if we are human (k-selection), even though the herd must just graze on whatever grass is available (r-selection). This is the Doolittle chart, not the Nolan Chart. This chart unifies all disciplines from biology to politics to economics. This chart is consistently explanatory across all political orders. So as far as I know any OTHER method of representing the organization of Production(consumption), commons(investment) and reproduction(perpetuation) is a distraction for the purpose of achieving an alternate end other than the true and moral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • It should be obvious that the (a) Doolittle (Scientific) Political Chart and the

    It should be obvious that the (a) Doolittle (Scientific) Political Chart and the (b) Western Philosophical Hierarchy post, are compatible since western libertarian compromise/exchange/sovereignty society occupies the middle (compromise) position.

    It is not so obvious that this is a superior method for humans to CALCULATE their actions in real time.

    But If I flesh out the chart with the alternative metaphysical hierarchies then it will be fairly obvious how all of these philosophies map to strategies. I’m just afraid that it will be too complex for mere mortals.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 05:36:00 UTC

  • THE DOOLITTLE (SCIENTIFIC) POLITICAL CHART The only meaningful notion of ‘right’

    THE DOOLITTLE (SCIENTIFIC) POLITICAL CHART

    The only meaningful notion of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that I can state existentially is k-selection (right/masculine ), vs r-selection (left/feminine-universal) since these are opposing strategies with libertarianism (voluntary cooperation) achievable as a compromise between the two strategies. (that is how I see we minority libertarians: providing a compromise between the genders through voluntary cooperation).

    As far as I know we must talk in at least three dimensions to discuss options on political orders.

    1 – Organization of production – distribution of property

    <—centralized—————-meritocratic—————–equal—>

    <—tyranny———————-liberty———————-communism->

    2 – Organization of production of the commons – the fruits of production

    <—-centralized—————meritocratic—————- equal—>

    <—-tyranny———————–liberty——————–communism->

    3 – Organization of Reproduction – National(kin) or Corporate(kin-independent)

    <—-authoritarian(personal)—–kin/nation————corporate–>

    <—-???——————————Eugenic—————Dysgenic—>

    <—K-selection…………………. merit selection…….. r-selection—>

    And to construct these organizations we require incentives:

    4 – Weapon of Influence (methods of organization)

    <—-Violence———————–Exchange————-Gossip——–>

    <—-Loss of Life/harm…..loss of consumption….loss of cooperation–>

    <—-Promise of safety….promise of consumption… promise of cooperation->

    So it is indeed impossible to construct an r-selected order non-parasitically. Because that’s precisely what it means. And it is so because we must produce incentive to engage in costly production if we are human (k-selection), even though the herd must just graze on whatever grass is available (r-selection).

    This is the Doolittle chart, not the Nolan Chart.

    This chart unifies all disciplines from biology to politics to economics.

    This chart is consistently explanatory across all political orders.

    So as far as I know any OTHER method of representing the organization of Production(consumption), commons(investment) and reproduction(perpetuation) is a distraction for the purpose of achieving an alternate end other than the true and moral.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 05:28:00 UTC

  • DISHONEST PHRASE OF THE YEAR: “Government Gridlock” ……………………….

    DISHONEST PHRASE OF THE YEAR:

    “Government Gridlock”

    ………………………………Translation:

    ……………………………………………”Failure of my party to get what I want”.

    In other words our government is working perfectly.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 13:37:00 UTC

  • ARE THEY IN FACT RELIGIONS? OR ARE THEY MILITARY AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS (worth re

    ARE THEY IN FACT RELIGIONS? OR ARE THEY MILITARY AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

    (worth repeating)

    ISLAM: Islam is a (destructive) military system of perpetual conquest masquerading as a religion. they have weaponized reproduction, raiding, parasitism, and ignorance (static truth), and every muslim nation is harmed by its presence.

    JUDAISM Judaism is a (parasitic) legal system masquerading as a religion and political system. It is neither. Every host nation is harmed by its presence.

    MARXISM. Marxism was a (parasitic) religion masquerading as a political system, constructed from obscurantism and pseudoscience. Every host nation was not only harmed but the subject of vast murder and genocide, and imposed vast costs on the rest of mankind.

    CHRISTIANITY Christianity is a (constructive) ethical and moral system which is what we comprehend in the west as the purpose of a religious system. In other words we have a cognitive bias in the west to classify religions by their signage rather than by their functions.

    BUDDHISM. Buddhism is a personal philosophy if not a mental training exercise required of all humans in post tribal life, masquerading as a religion. Stoicism is to buddhism what philosophy is to religion. It was a tragic loss. So buddhism is the sort of silly version that remains.

    HINDUISM Hinduism is a mythological religion that is so pervasive as to nearly totally disconnect humans from existential reality so that they can tolerate bad weather, overpopulation, and near starvation.

    The easiest way to solve the constitutional problem is to classify a religion as christians classify a religion, which means that only christianity, buddhism and hinduism survive as de facto religions.

    Any religion incompatible with Natural Law (the law of christianity and the west) is not a religion, but a political system, or a military system, both of which are means of conquest.

    RELIGION MAY PROVIDE WISDOM AND ALLEGORY BUT IT MAY NOT CLAIM TRUTH OR LAW.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 06:29:00 UTC

  • “Pakistan says it will respond to any threat to Saudi Arabia”—AP Wire Thats th

    —“Pakistan says it will respond to any threat to Saudi Arabia”—AP Wire

    Thats the Signal I was looking for! 🙂

    Now we are getting somewhere!

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 15:15:00 UTC