Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW There are a number

    MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW

    There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.

    In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.

    That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.

    As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.

    As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.

    Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 17:04:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/your_posts/36408614_10156459019487264_3065926240624967680_o_10

    photos_and_videos/your_posts/36408614_10156459019487264_3065926240624967680_o_10

    photos_and_videos/your_posts/36408614_10156459019487264_3065926240624967680_o_10156459019477264.jpg Trent FowlerCurt: “Have you guys heard the good news of Propertarianism?”

    Them: “Stop. You had me at ‘Aristocracy’”Jun 28, 2018 2:23pmRichie MonteroWhat am I witnessing?Jun 28, 2018 2:25pmRolo Tomasiyou are always with beautiful ladiesJun 28, 2018 2:26pmAndrew SpivakI thought It was Lars Ulrich from Metallica for a second.Jun 28, 2018 2:42pmZach MattoWhen you’re enjoying a night out on the town and you spot an AbrahamistJun 28, 2018 2:45pmStephen KlostermeierniceJun 28, 2018 6:57pmJason Adam MeentemeyerCurt, where are you?Jun 29, 2018 1:44am

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 14:22:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/36408614_10156459019487264_30659262

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/36408614_10156459019487264_30659262

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/36408614_10156459019487264_3065926240624967680_o_10156459019477264.jpg Trent FowlerCurt: “Have you guys heard the good news of Propertarianism?”

    Them: “Stop. You had me at ‘Aristocracy’”Jun 28, 2018 2:23pmRichie MonteroWhat am I witnessing?Jun 28, 2018 2:25pmRolo Tomasiyou are always with beautiful ladiesJun 28, 2018 2:26pmAndrew SpivakI thought It was Lars Ulrich from Metallica for a second.Jun 28, 2018 2:42pmZach MattoWhen you’re enjoying a night out on the town and you spot an AbrahamistJun 28, 2018 2:45pmStephen KlostermeierniceJun 28, 2018 6:57pmJason Adam MeentemeyerCurt, where are you?Jun 29, 2018 1:44am

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 14:22:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.)

    SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY

    It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law.

    Here is the Answer:

    (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage.
    (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite).
    (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons.
    (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons.
    (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”.
    (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history.
    (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 12:36:02 UTC

  • (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.) SOME

    (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.)

    SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY

    It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law.

    Here is the Answer:

    (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage.

    (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite).

    (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons.

    (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons.

    (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”.

    (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history.

    (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 08:36:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discr

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application.

    Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns.

    This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 14:54:34 UTC

  • Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law.

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application.

    Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns.

    This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 10:54:00 UTC

  • RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARI

    RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARIANISM

    —“Have you ever read Might is Right? I’m almost finished it. I’d like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson

    Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond)

    – Might is Right

    Nietzche:

    – The Birth of Tragedy

    – The Geneology of Morals

    – Beyond Good and Evil

    – The Will to Power

    1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time.

    2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.)

    3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful.

    4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition.

    5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.”

    Hope that helps

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 16:24:00 UTC

  • Ragnar Redbeard and Nietzsche: Introductions to Aristocratic Ethics of Propertarianism

    —“Have you ever read Might is Right? I’m almost finished it. I’d like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond) – Might is Right Nietzche: – The Birth of Tragedy – The Geneology of Morals – Beyond Good and Evil – The Will to Power 1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time. 2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.) 3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful. 4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition. 5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.” Hope that helps Curt

  • Ragnar Redbeard and Nietzsche: Introductions to Aristocratic Ethics of Propertarianism

    —“Have you ever read Might is Right? I’m almost finished it. I’d like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond) – Might is Right Nietzche: – The Birth of Tragedy – The Geneology of Morals – Beyond Good and Evil – The Will to Power 1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time. 2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.) 3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful. 4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition. 5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.” Hope that helps Curt