Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic)

    So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools.

    However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives.

    I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science.

    The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility.

    They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man.

    Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency.

    A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility.

    Eat The Weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-09 13:43:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism And Its Discontents (Sic)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools. However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives. I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science. The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility. They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man. Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency. A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility. Eat The Weak.

  • by Roman Busta An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone

    by Roman Busta An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone shares self-ownership. In praxeological terms, it doesn’t even make sense because not everyone demonstrates a preference for self-governance. In scientific terms, it especially doesn’t work because ownership requires reciprocity. Generally speaking, nobody strong enough to rule over you, who ascribes to and shares different interests than you, will ever permit you to own yourself when it is more profitable for them to extract tax dollars from the many individuals that reside in a given geographical territory by demonstrating sovereignty. That’s just the way it is. So, there can only be liberty through sovereignty, never sovereignty through liberty. Therefore you have two practical choices. Either you submit to the sovereign who shares your values so that you can compete, or you submit to the sovereign who has interests adversarial to your own.

  • by Roman Busta An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone

    by Roman Busta

    An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone shares self-ownership. In praxeological terms, it doesn’t even make sense because not everyone demonstrates a preference for self-governance.

    In scientific terms, it especially doesn’t work because ownership requires reciprocity. Generally speaking, nobody strong enough to rule over you, who ascribes to and shares different interests than you, will ever permit you to own yourself when it is more profitable for them to extract tax dollars from the many individuals that reside in a given geographical territory by demonstrating sovereignty. That’s just the way it is.

    So, there can only be liberty through sovereignty, never sovereignty through liberty. Therefore you have two practical choices. Either you submit to the sovereign who shares your values so that you can compete, or you submit to the sovereign who has interests adversarial to your own.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-08 00:14:00 UTC

  • by Roman Busta An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone

    by Roman Busta An important false assumption in libertarianism is that everyone shares self-ownership. In praxeological terms, it doesn’t even make sense because not everyone demonstrates a preference for self-governance. In scientific terms, it especially doesn’t work because ownership requires reciprocity. Generally speaking, nobody strong enough to rule over you, who ascribes to and shares different interests than you, will ever permit you to own yourself when it is more profitable for them to extract tax dollars from the many individuals that reside in a given geographical territory by demonstrating sovereignty. That’s just the way it is. So, there can only be liberty through sovereignty, never sovereignty through liberty. Therefore you have two practical choices. Either you submit to the sovereign who shares your values so that you can compete, or you submit to the sovereign who has interests adversarial to your own.

  • Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians I think we agree on what constitu

    Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians I think we agree on what constitutes aggression. I think we disagree about the scope of property against one can aggress, and the responsibilities we bear for the Commons.

  • Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians I think we agree on what constitu

    Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians

    I think we agree on what constitutes aggression. I think we disagree about the scope of property against one can aggress, and the responsibilities we bear for the Commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 14:22:00 UTC

  • Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians I think we agree on what constitu

    Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians I think we agree on what constitutes aggression. I think we disagree about the scope of property against one can aggress, and the responsibilities we bear for the Commons.

  • Return To Rule By Rule Of Law, Markets In Everything, And The Continuous Evolution Of The Animal Man.

    We are the masters of the first asset: violence. Violence like any asset can be put to good, or to ill. We can return to the continuous domestication and husbandry of humans, animals, machines, and this earth – if not the universe. And in doing so evolve ourselves and man into gods. Or we can be victims of those who lack that ability.

  • RETURN TO RULE BY RULE OF LAW, MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, AND THE CONTINUOUS EVOLUTI

    RETURN TO RULE BY RULE OF LAW, MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, AND THE CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION OF THE ANIMAL MAN.

    We are the masters of the first asset: violence. Violence like any asset can be put to good, or to ill. We can return to the continuous domestication and husbandry of humans, animals, machines, and this earth – if not the universe. And in doing so evolve ourselves and man into gods. Or we can be victims of those who lack that ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 13:00:00 UTC