Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • “Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheReal

    —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH

    Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciprocal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils.

  • The Origin of Moral Foundations

    by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.

  • The Origin of Moral Foundations

    by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.

  • Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)

    Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”

    —“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse

    The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.

  • Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)

    Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”

    —“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse

    The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)

  • Propertarianism Fits, but Sovereigntarianism and Rule of Law Fit Better.

    Mar 28, 2020, 2:32 PM (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err. PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”

  • Propertarianism Fits, but Sovereigntarianism and Rule of Law Fit Better.

    Mar 28, 2020, 2:32 PM (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err. PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”

  • Another Common Property

    Mar 31, 2020, 3:47 PM

    —“Axioms”, like “First principles”, are a common property. You can not define them without the concept “we”. It is a contradiction to build an ideology that denies commons on a foundation of commons. This foundation is what libertarianism scavenges from ideologies that invest in and defend those properties.”—by Luke Weinhagen