Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • WILL AMERICAN-STYLE CAPITALISM STILL EXIST 100 YEARS FROM NOW? by Curt Doolittle

    WILL AMERICAN-STYLE CAPITALISM STILL EXIST 100 YEARS FROM NOW?

    by Curt Doolittle, Philosopher of political economy and founder of the Propertarian Institute.

    America doesn’t practice capitalism it practices rule of law, and as a consequence of rule of law, people are limited to survival in markets. Because western civilization began entrepreneurially, developed promise and contract, tort law and property, testimony and jury, we have long standing institutions for enforcing contracts, and long standing tradition of high trust. So for these reasons we could develop large scale organizations using contracts. These large scale organizations using contracts could organize a lot of money behind entrepreneurial ventures. Because of a combination of rule of law of tort, contracts, and large organizations, we could create high production capacity using high capital investment in machines, without resorting to central government control, militarizing people, serfdom or slavery to organize people into large working groups. And using this combination of law, contract, jury, large organizations, and technological innovation, we could drag humanity – resisting us, kicking and screaming – out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the chaos of natural forces, at the cost of creating uncertainty. So people traded poverty and certainty for prosperity and uncertainty. And people continue to make the choice every day. The communists (jews) invented the terms capitalism as a criticism, and socialism and communism as a false promise, as a means of restoring certainty and control over their lives. But neither socialism or communism is possible because both suffer from the four big problems of lack of incentives, and therefore laziness, the inability to use prices to efficiently organize an economy, and endemic corruption by state managed industries and the government, and the tendency of the people to vote themselves or demand themselves into tragedies ofthe commons: consumption higher than production.

    What the future will bring?

    In advanced countries one child policies: Automation will continue to drive down human labor markets until only a third of people, or maybe a fifth of people, can find employment, nd those people who work will end democracy and rule the people that can’t. The end result will be eugenics that suppressed the reproduction and consumption of those people who are unable to participate in production distribution and trade. IN poor countries they will forgo automation and continue to use labor, which will produce subsistence level for the poor and a small wealthy class.

    Just Like the rest of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 20:13:00 UTC

  • By Scott De Warren We can have an orderly prosecution of the organized crime syn

    By Scott De Warren

    We can have an orderly prosecution of the organized crime syndicate, seizure of their assets for restitution and repatriation of their proletarian invaders, or we can declare war.

    Those are their choices.

    Separation will only give them time to build up their defenses and plan further attacks against us.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 09:01:00 UTC

  • The secret of European and Sinic civilizations was soft eugenics using the natur

    The secret of European and Sinic civilizations was soft eugenics using the natural pressure of farming, with manorialism’s land access, natural credit access, and aggressive prosecution of criminals.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 20:46:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231319341100158980

    Reply addressees: @stack_dalton @razibkhan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231318598758604800

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @stack_dalton @razibkhan The only cancer on this earth is abrahamism: the systemic application of the female method of undermining as a means of civilizational warfare under pretense of religion sold to useful idiots using the false promise of freedom from natural laws of our differences.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1231318598758604800

  • “I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated

    —“I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated discussion that her emotions were simply a response to a perceived change in property.”—Michael Churchill

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 19:57:00 UTC

  • By Martin Štěpán Emotions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in

    By Martin Štěpán

    Emotions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in property. At most, you can say they’re bad when they’re measuring incorrectly but that’s not about morality but about the brain working sub-optimally.

    I think what might also be going on is conflation with Christian deadly sins. But these, as far as I know, are judged by actions.

    So, greed can motivate a rational agent to accumulate wealth by engaging in reciprocal exchanges where parasitism and predation are sufficiently dis-incentivized.

    Lust can motivate one deepen connection with his mate and to produce a next generation, especially, again, where the alternatives are sufficiently dis-incentivized.

    Vengeance can lead one to punish what deserves to be punished and thus dis-incentivize the recipient of vengeance from repeating it (or else removing him from the society and the gene-pool) as well as dis-incentivize other from doing the same.

    Self-deception might lead to behave in more moral ways, such as when one deceives himself that there is an afterlife and morality our actions in this life will determine whether it will be pleasurable or painful.

    Empathy can often be extended to people who deserve none or who cannot or wouldn’t reciprocate, enabling parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 14:50:00 UTC

  • RT @terminus2020: —“What is a Right?”— via @curtdoolittle

    RT @terminus2020: —“What is a Right?”— https://propertarianism.com/2018/08/13/what-is-a-right-2/ via @curtdoolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 13:06:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230478818021957635

  • QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic

    QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.

    Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement)

    Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational).

    Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.

    Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival)

    Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent.

    Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement),

    Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity.

    In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.

    Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility).

    In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology).

    Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement) Science(matter) and Economics(people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 20:13:00 UTC

  • What Innovations does P Bring?

    —“I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Propertarianism is a sort of restatement of English Common Law combined with modern Economics 101. Economics tells us that the proper role of the state is to prevent/punish externalities. English Common Law developed over centuries – albeit in a groping-in-the-dark sort of way – precisely to prevent/punish externalities even though the theory of externalities wasn’t fully understood until last century. Propertarianism seems to me to be basically true because Economics 101 is theoretically elegant as the English Common Law is empirically robust. All I’m saying is that I fail to see anything innovative in Propertarianism. What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”—Calixto Muni

    [G]ood Question Formal operational logic, extension of commercial suppression of hazard to political speech, ending baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, and undermining of the natural law. For example, how do you test Truthful speech in court? What is the test of tort (reciprocity)? How can we prevent redefinition of legal terms that are insufficiently defined in order to circumvent the law’s dependence upon them. How can we strictly construct law closed to interpretation? How do we return undecidable cases to the legislature? How do we stop the legislature from constructing unconstitutional law before inserting it into the polity? Was via negativa constitutional monarchy really worse or better? Why do we need multiple houses for the classes instead of single house parliaments. Why has democracy failed, and where did we go wrong? What was the west’s group evolutionary strategy and why was it different from other civilizations, and why did it produced outsized responses? How do we stop another overthrow of our civlization through the abrahamic technique of undermining by false promise of escape from physical and natural law in exchange for undermining host polities and creating dark ages – this time with boasian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism – the use of pseudoscience and sophism to undermine our market for cooperation between the classes at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, so that we can devote surpluses from those savings to the production of increasingly productive high trust commons? How do we reform the polity given what we’ve learned in the past century and a half (almost two)? The economic reforms will restore the family and the middle classes. The legal reforms will prevent future conquest of our peoples. The intellectual reforms will crush the academic-media-entertainment propaganda system of organized undermining of our people. The scientific reforms will end the incompatibility of the disciplines. You’re seeing correctly, that we restore common law, add the lessons of economics, and the lessons of the experiments with an open franchise government. What you’re not seeing is the completion of the construction of a constitution of formal natural law. You’re not seeing is the completion of the Aristotelian program, the end of the left’s second attempted dark age, and the renaissance that must result from the completion of the sciences by extension from the physical to the metaphysical (linguistic), psychological, and sociological, so that it is no longer possible to lie about the universe man and how we survive and evolve while in a condition of excellence. P is a huge program. This is why it takes someone like John Mark to explain it.I built it for intellectuals who must rule and defend against ill rule.John takes it to ordinary people who desire good rule, and to avoid ill rule.And those who cannot grasp either, must follow only because of the material benefits that will be the greatest restoration of the middle since the roman reforms.

  • What Innovations does P Bring?

    —“I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Propertarianism is a sort of restatement of English Common Law combined with modern Economics 101. Economics tells us that the proper role of the state is to prevent/punish externalities. English Common Law developed over centuries – albeit in a groping-in-the-dark sort of way – precisely to prevent/punish externalities even though the theory of externalities wasn’t fully understood until last century. Propertarianism seems to me to be basically true because Economics 101 is theoretically elegant as the English Common Law is empirically robust. All I’m saying is that I fail to see anything innovative in Propertarianism. What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”—Calixto Muni

    [G]ood Question Formal operational logic, extension of commercial suppression of hazard to political speech, ending baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, and undermining of the natural law. For example, how do you test Truthful speech in court? What is the test of tort (reciprocity)? How can we prevent redefinition of legal terms that are insufficiently defined in order to circumvent the law’s dependence upon them. How can we strictly construct law closed to interpretation? How do we return undecidable cases to the legislature? How do we stop the legislature from constructing unconstitutional law before inserting it into the polity? Was via negativa constitutional monarchy really worse or better? Why do we need multiple houses for the classes instead of single house parliaments. Why has democracy failed, and where did we go wrong? What was the west’s group evolutionary strategy and why was it different from other civilizations, and why did it produced outsized responses? How do we stop another overthrow of our civlization through the abrahamic technique of undermining by false promise of escape from physical and natural law in exchange for undermining host polities and creating dark ages – this time with boasian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism – the use of pseudoscience and sophism to undermine our market for cooperation between the classes at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, so that we can devote surpluses from those savings to the production of increasingly productive high trust commons? How do we reform the polity given what we’ve learned in the past century and a half (almost two)? The economic reforms will restore the family and the middle classes. The legal reforms will prevent future conquest of our peoples. The intellectual reforms will crush the academic-media-entertainment propaganda system of organized undermining of our people. The scientific reforms will end the incompatibility of the disciplines. You’re seeing correctly, that we restore common law, add the lessons of economics, and the lessons of the experiments with an open franchise government. What you’re not seeing is the completion of the construction of a constitution of formal natural law. You’re not seeing is the completion of the Aristotelian program, the end of the left’s second attempted dark age, and the renaissance that must result from the completion of the sciences by extension from the physical to the metaphysical (linguistic), psychological, and sociological, so that it is no longer possible to lie about the universe man and how we survive and evolve while in a condition of excellence. P is a huge program. This is why it takes someone like John Mark to explain it.I built it for intellectuals who must rule and defend against ill rule.John takes it to ordinary people who desire good rule, and to avoid ill rule.And those who cannot grasp either, must follow only because of the material benefits that will be the greatest restoration of the middle since the roman reforms.

  • “I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Pr

    —“I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Propertarianism is a sort of restatement of English Common Law combined with modern Economics 101. Economics tells us that the proper role of the state is to prevent/punish externalities. English Common Law developed over centuries – albeit in a groping-in-the-dark sort of way – precisely to prevent/punish externalities even though the theory of externalities wasn’t fully understood until last century. Propertarianism seems to me to be basically true because Economics 101 is theoretically elegant as the English Common Law is empirically robust. All I’m saying is that I fail to see anything innovative in Propertarianism. What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”—Calixto Muni

    Formal operational logic, extension of commercial suppression of hazard to political speech, ending baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, and undermining of the natural law. For example, how do you test Truthful speech in court? What is the test of tort (reciprocity)? How can we prevent redefinition of legal terms that are insufficiently defined in order to circumvent the law’s dependence upon them. How can we strictly construct law closed to interpretation? How do we return undecidable cases to the legislature? How do we stop the legislature from constructing unconstitutional law before inserting it into the polity? Was via negativa constitutional monarchy really worse or better? Why do we need multiple houses for the classes instead of single house parliaments. Why has democracy failed, and where did we go wrong? What was the west’s group evolutionary strategy and why was it different from other civilizations, and why did it produced outsized responses? How do we stop another overthrow of our civlization through the abrahamic technique of undermining by false promise of escape from physical and natural law in exchange for undermining host polities and creating dark ages – this time with boasian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism – the use of pseudoscience and sophism to undermine our market for cooperation between the classses at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, so that we can devote surpluses from those savings to the production of increasingly productive high trust commons?

    How do we reform the polity given what we’ve learned in the past century and a half (almost two)? The economic reforms will restore the family and the middle classes. The legal reforms will prevent future conquest of our peoples. The intellectual reforms will crush the academic-media-entertainment propaganda system of organized undermining of our people. The scientific reforms will end the incompatibility of the disciplines.

    You’re seeing correctly, that we restore common law, add the lessons of economics, and the lessons of the experiments with an open franchise government. What you’re not seeing is the completion of the construction of a constitution of formal natural law. You’re not seeing is the completion of the Aristotelian program, the end of the left’s second attempted dark age, and the renaissance that *must* result from the completion of the sciences by extension from the physical to the metaphysical (linguisic), psychological, and sociological, so that it is no longer possible to lie about the universe man and how we survive and evolve while in a condition of excellence.

    P is a huge program. This is why it takes someone like john to explain it.

    I built it for intellectuals who must rule and defend against ill rule.

    John takes it to ordinary people who desire good rule, and avoid ill rule.

    And those who cannot grasp either, must follow only because of the material benefits that will be the greatest restoration of the middle since the roman reforms.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 14:02:00 UTC