Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • God Is God, Jesus Is Jesus, and Monopoly Its Not

    Apr 14, 2020, 9:33 AM

    —“Just because most organized religions are corrupt money and power machines, doesn’t make the Christ any less the God of this world… Look at what the nation under God has become.”—Patrick Huntley

    Scientifically speaking, of god’s laws, christ added a minor improvement to natural law – one that is counter-intuitive to primitive man – and that gave women and the underclasses a philosophy of self respect and social value despite being left behind by the rapid advancements of the ancient material world, just like marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism tried to give social value to the women, underclasses, and immigrants in the modern material world. God is god. Jesus is Jesus. His contribution is profound. But it is profound as a minor improvement on god’s laws that perhaps could not have been discovered until so many people in the underclasses were left behind by the advancements in the ancient world. The modern world’s jews updated this EMOTIONAL (Spiritual) jewish social construction in the ancient world and it’s claim of prosecution by their aristocratic betters, from claims of political power and informational power, to claims of economic, political, and informational power. This is contrary to the european tradition of reason, stoicism, Epicureanism, the play, and celebratory festivals that were costly and the asian tradition of buddhism which was cheap both of which achieve their ends without destroying the host aristocracy as did christianity, judaism, and islam. Christianity was a cheap way of powerless people to obtain status and self image at the cost of destroying the host political order. Islam the same. Judaism the same. Religion destroys in exchange for psychological comfort. The question was and is, whether we can produce a religion that doesn’t destroy in exchange. So far that is the roman: reason, stoicism, Epicureanism, the play, and celebratory festivals that are expensive. The success of western civlization is due to our traditional social order of a universal militia, law, and their traditions. The underclass religions of abrahamism are a means by which those that would be slaves, serfs, servants, the poor, and mothers could seek mindfulness in an increasingly advanced world that was leaving them behind – and by which a cast of priests – also being left behind by modernity – could rule them for profit. Man is not moral or good. He is amoral and practical. It is our institutions of suppression of the bad that limit him to the good.

  • God Is God, Jesus Is Jesus, and Monopoly Its Not

    Apr 14, 2020, 9:33 AM

    —“Just because most organized religions are corrupt money and power machines, doesn’t make the Christ any less the God of this world… Look at what the nation under God has become.”—Patrick Huntley

    Scientifically speaking, of god’s laws, christ added a minor improvement to natural law – one that is counter-intuitive to primitive man – and that gave women and the underclasses a philosophy of self respect and social value despite being left behind by the rapid advancements of the ancient material world, just like marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism tried to give social value to the women, underclasses, and immigrants in the modern material world. God is god. Jesus is Jesus. His contribution is profound. But it is profound as a minor improvement on god’s laws that perhaps could not have been discovered until so many people in the underclasses were left behind by the advancements in the ancient world. The modern world’s jews updated this EMOTIONAL (Spiritual) jewish social construction in the ancient world and it’s claim of prosecution by their aristocratic betters, from claims of political power and informational power, to claims of economic, political, and informational power. This is contrary to the european tradition of reason, stoicism, Epicureanism, the play, and celebratory festivals that were costly and the asian tradition of buddhism which was cheap both of which achieve their ends without destroying the host aristocracy as did christianity, judaism, and islam. Christianity was a cheap way of powerless people to obtain status and self image at the cost of destroying the host political order. Islam the same. Judaism the same. Religion destroys in exchange for psychological comfort. The question was and is, whether we can produce a religion that doesn’t destroy in exchange. So far that is the roman: reason, stoicism, Epicureanism, the play, and celebratory festivals that are expensive. The success of western civlization is due to our traditional social order of a universal militia, law, and their traditions. The underclass religions of abrahamism are a means by which those that would be slaves, serfs, servants, the poor, and mothers could seek mindfulness in an increasingly advanced world that was leaving them behind – and by which a cast of priests – also being left behind by modernity – could rule them for profit. Man is not moral or good. He is amoral and practical. It is our institutions of suppression of the bad that limit him to the good.

  • Giving the little Guy Power

    May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark

    “The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”

    (Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?

  • Giving the little Guy Power

    May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark

    “The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”

    (Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?

  • We are missing the headman

    We are missing the headman https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/we-are-missing-the-headman/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:01:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265840477682708480

  • We are missing the headman

    May 26, 2020, 3:01 PM We are missing the headman/mayor, mentor, priest, or rabbi in our civilization so that we abandon all people to navigating general rules – the excess of liberty so to speak. On of the institutions I’m trying to reconstruct is that.

  • We are missing the headman

    May 26, 2020, 3:01 PM We are missing the headman/mayor, mentor, priest, or rabbi in our civilization so that we abandon all people to navigating general rules – the excess of liberty so to speak. On of the institutions I’m trying to reconstruct is that.

  • Anti-Statism. Is that Correct? I Don”t Think So.

    Oct 6, 2019, 7:23 AM Hmmm … This is an angle I haven’t worked on enough, which is disambiguating the state (assets and bureaucracy), government (leadership), authority (rule of law and market polity vs authority and directed polity). Because it’s not whether we have a state or government or authority but whether we have rule of law or arbitrary rule (Rule by discretion). Plato’s vision and Sparta’s vision were different only in details. Fundamentally, in both, the majority ‘unwashed’ needed rule. The church the same. The feudal fiefs the same (true). In the monarchies the people only needed order because the middle class had begun to evolve and commerce creates order by incentives thereby eliminating the need for intervention by rulers. The enlightenment sought a majority middle class where all of us were governed by incentives in the market. The industrial revolution tried to reverse it, under Marx putting labor in position of authority rather than the market, and the vast increase in the underclasses continued that expansion. So when we say we are anti-state, or anti-governmnet this isn’t really true. it’s that we need a state and need a government, sufficient to preserve the largest middle class (market participants) possible, with the optimum common possible. And the only way to do that is rule of law and eugenics. And eugenics requires either embodiment in law, or the unfettered consequences of the market. So embodiment in the law is preferable solution because it is a moral solution that trades non-reproduction, for subsidy.

  • Anti-Statism. Is that Correct? I Don”t Think So.

    Oct 6, 2019, 7:23 AM Hmmm … This is an angle I haven’t worked on enough, which is disambiguating the state (assets and bureaucracy), government (leadership), authority (rule of law and market polity vs authority and directed polity). Because it’s not whether we have a state or government or authority but whether we have rule of law or arbitrary rule (Rule by discretion). Plato’s vision and Sparta’s vision were different only in details. Fundamentally, in both, the majority ‘unwashed’ needed rule. The church the same. The feudal fiefs the same (true). In the monarchies the people only needed order because the middle class had begun to evolve and commerce creates order by incentives thereby eliminating the need for intervention by rulers. The enlightenment sought a majority middle class where all of us were governed by incentives in the market. The industrial revolution tried to reverse it, under Marx putting labor in position of authority rather than the market, and the vast increase in the underclasses continued that expansion. So when we say we are anti-state, or anti-governmnet this isn’t really true. it’s that we need a state and need a government, sufficient to preserve the largest middle class (market participants) possible, with the optimum common possible. And the only way to do that is rule of law and eugenics. And eugenics requires either embodiment in law, or the unfettered consequences of the market. So embodiment in the law is preferable solution because it is a moral solution that trades non-reproduction, for subsidy.

  • Developing Countries.

    Oct 9, 2019, 9:41 PM It sounds horrible to you but the easiest answer is to hire 10,000 American lawyers to run your courts. This is the same strategy ancient empires used by using people from remote parts of the empires to govern populations they had no knowledge of. It works perfectly in past and present. Everyone says they want good government, but they cannot have good government without good courts, and either soldiers or police who enforce the judgement of the court. The court constrains the government. Your constitutions are probably fine. Your government is probably not fine. it is a government. What makes the west successful is not our governments. IT IS OUR LAW. Law is a ‘Religion’ in for our people. Especially in America.