Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551981350 Timestamp) by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society like 1. Alcohol, Drugs 2. Pornography 3. Abortion 4. Death penalty Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now. I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand. This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video. —Answer— I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

    1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
      GIVEN
      a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.
    2. PORNOGRAPHY
      There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

    b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons. c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question. But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation. We can: d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it. I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell. e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.) f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”). We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes. There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s. Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

    1. ABORTION
      Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

    2. DEATH PENALTY
      The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

    So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1552598676 Timestamp) (must read) by James Fox Higgins I’m seeing a number of people who are struggling with some of the core ideas of Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism like property-in-toto which observes that one man’s ideal of the concept “property” may differ from another’s, just as in some cultures women are considered a man’s property which we in the Christian west find abhorrent. But the reality remains: in the Islamic state, women ARE the property of their men. It doesn’t make it morally right. It’s just an empirical fact. I thought Curt was Satan incarnate until it clicked for me that he is not in the business of moralisms like just about every other philosopher is. He’s not dealing with Platonic ideals. He’s dealing with Aristotelean empiricism. Not what ought to be (which is culturally relative), but what is (which is empirical). Words like “legitimate property” are ideals, but fail to argue against what really occurs: people defend with force that which they consider to be theirs. Those with the greater will to power, control such moral definitions. You really think the men of radical Islam will care about our Christian moralisms if they gain control of our lands? Might doesn’t make make right, might makes rule. You can talk about property moralistically if you like, but it has no bearing on the empirical reality. Wishful thinking seldom changes the reality of those who don’t accept your definitions but do have a greater will to power. This is what propertarianism is about: using language to describe what actually is, not what ought to be. Your ideals-based definitions of property are fine if you preface them with “I prefer” or “I wish” or “what would be ideal to me is” or “what is most in line with Christian ethics is”… But when it comes down to it… Bane OWNED Gotham city, until Batman took it back. Morality is only as good (in practise) as those with the will to protect it. Morality is God-given, but it is protected by the will and flesh of men. If you won’t fight for what is yours and what you believe in your heart to be right, you’re just relying on others to do it for you so you can quibble over the language of “legitimate property”. When the barbarians take your lands, livestock, and women, it is (empirically) theirs. Same applies to anything you value. Own it and defend it, or accept that others will.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552609304 Timestamp) —“My five year old understand reciprocity.Next I’m going to teach him property in toto. Then skull pyramid building.”—Noah J Revoy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552607161 Timestamp) MORE by James Fox Higgins (gold) I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful. So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in. Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies. At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others. But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises). We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation). You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1552598676 Timestamp) (must read) by James Fox Higgins I’m seeing a number of people who are struggling with some of the core ideas of Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism like property-in-toto which observes that one man’s ideal of the concept “property” may differ from another’s, just as in some cultures women are considered a man’s property which we in the Christian west find abhorrent. But the reality remains: in the Islamic state, women ARE the property of their men. It doesn’t make it morally right. It’s just an empirical fact. I thought Curt was Satan incarnate until it clicked for me that he is not in the business of moralisms like just about every other philosopher is. He’s not dealing with Platonic ideals. He’s dealing with Aristotelean empiricism. Not what ought to be (which is culturally relative), but what is (which is empirical). Words like “legitimate property” are ideals, but fail to argue against what really occurs: people defend with force that which they consider to be theirs. Those with the greater will to power, control such moral definitions. You really think the men of radical Islam will care about our Christian moralisms if they gain control of our lands? Might doesn’t make make right, might makes rule. You can talk about property moralistically if you like, but it has no bearing on the empirical reality. Wishful thinking seldom changes the reality of those who don’t accept your definitions but do have a greater will to power. This is what propertarianism is about: using language to describe what actually is, not what ought to be. Your ideals-based definitions of property are fine if you preface them with “I prefer” or “I wish” or “what would be ideal to me is” or “what is most in line with Christian ethics is”… But when it comes down to it… Bane OWNED Gotham city, until Batman took it back. Morality is only as good (in practise) as those with the will to protect it. Morality is God-given, but it is protected by the will and flesh of men. If you won’t fight for what is yours and what you believe in your heart to be right, you’re just relying on others to do it for you so you can quibble over the language of “legitimate property”. When the barbarians take your lands, livestock, and women, it is (empirically) theirs. Same applies to anything you value. Own it and defend it, or accept that others will.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552609304 Timestamp) —“My five year old understand reciprocity.Next I’m going to teach him property in toto. Then skull pyramid building.”—Noah J Revoy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552607161 Timestamp) MORE by James Fox Higgins (gold) I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful. So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in. Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies. At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others. But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises). We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation). You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552604195 Timestamp) IT’S DECISION TIME! —“If you believe in the NAP and you want to be morally consistent you had better get studying Propertarianism and learn about reciprocity because you can’t be NAP compliant and lack in reciprocity. My objective is to make people admit that the NAP is their excuse to do nothing or to force them to act reciprocally and demand reciprocity. Its decision time people!”—Noah J Revoy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552752838 Timestamp) THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it. Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE” One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE” One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other. Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES” Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see) Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).” Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it. Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552752838 Timestamp) THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it. Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE” One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE” One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other. Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES” Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see) Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).” Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it. Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”