(FB 1550109178 Timestamp) —“One time I asked Curt Doolittle “What is stopping me from killing you, taking your things, and rping your women?”. He told me that if I wanted to do those things than he would join me and recruit more men to help and so on.”—- Lance Starin
Theme: Property
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550156152 Timestamp) “Your Conservatism changes to Propertarianism once your country is stolen from you by the use of lies.” –Serg Gio
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550156152 Timestamp) “Your Conservatism changes to Propertarianism once your country is stolen from you by the use of lies.” –Serg Gio
-
(FB 1550184766 Timestamp) by Eli Harman Canada’s gun laws aren’t terrible TBH. T
(FB 1550184766 Timestamp) by Eli Harman Canada’s gun laws aren’t terrible TBH. There are some more restrictive training and permitting requirements than in the states. But the nationwide registry was abolished in 2012 (Quebec has their own.) Some models are banned or restricted. But there are generally workalikes and lookalikes available. There are no transferrable full autos, but the import restrictions aren’t as strict. The real issue is just that there isn’t the same “gun culture” and people’s sense of popular sovereignty is totally invested in democratic processes and institutions (which are easy to corrupt and pervert) and not in the right to revolt, which is stigmatized more and celebrated less, compared to the breakaway colonies… (And the right of self-defense is weaker with basically no provisions for legally carrying or using firearms for that purpose.)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550199062 Timestamp) NOT REALLY. THERE IS NO NEED TO DEBATE. by John Mark “Somebody (Curt or me or some other propertarian) needs to debate (whoever).” Not really. There is no “need” to debate. We’re selling a product in a sense. A fairly complete and polished one. Nobody else even has a product on the market, really. Apple & Samsung don’t “debate”, they just put out their products & let people analyze & decide for themselves. And in our “industry” there is no one else even competing in the market (for workable right-wing solutions). Everybody else is hoping for a strongman or wishing people would unite around their religion (won’t happen). I’m still waiting for someone who wants to debate or criticize to write a constitution. Until then they’re just giving our product free publicity. And unless they have a big audience that hasn’t already heard of us, why “debate” when we could get equivalent exposure more efficiently some other way (for me, making more videos). -John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550199062 Timestamp) NOT REALLY. THERE IS NO NEED TO DEBATE. by John Mark “Somebody (Curt or me or some other propertarian) needs to debate (whoever).” Not really. There is no “need” to debate. We’re selling a product in a sense. A fairly complete and polished one. Nobody else even has a product on the market, really. Apple & Samsung don’t “debate”, they just put out their products & let people analyze & decide for themselves. And in our “industry” there is no one else even competing in the market (for workable right-wing solutions). Everybody else is hoping for a strongman or wishing people would unite around their religion (won’t happen). I’m still waiting for someone who wants to debate or criticize to write a constitution. Until then they’re just giving our product free publicity. And unless they have a big audience that hasn’t already heard of us, why “debate” when we could get equivalent exposure more efficiently some other way (for me, making more videos). -John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550340251 Timestamp) WOOD CHIPPER POLITICAL PARTY? ( lol 😉 ) by Eric Burkett Here is how property really works: …. If you wonât fight for it you then donât own shit. ….. We tried principles. ….. We got open border child stripper communism. Wood chippers now.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550340251 Timestamp) WOOD CHIPPER POLITICAL PARTY? ( lol 😉 ) by Eric Burkett Here is how property really works: …. If you wonât fight for it you then donât own shit. ….. We tried principles. ….. We got open border child stripper communism. Wood chippers now.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550407650 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM VS IT’S APPLICATION The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability). Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above). P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.” You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully. To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences. Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether. P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise. But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives. Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it. The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550407650 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM VS IT’S APPLICATION The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability). Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above). P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.” You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully. To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences. Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether. P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise. But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives. Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it. The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).