Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • STRATEGY FOR YOUNG MEN? MONEY Live Cheaply. Save 1/2 of what you make -first. Li

    STRATEGY FOR YOUNG MEN?

    MONEY

    Live Cheaply.

    Save 1/2 of what you make -first. Live on the rest.

    Spend all of the rest every month. Enjoy it.

    Use 1/2 of it to invest in territorial goods.

    Use 1/5 of it to invest in gold bought at quarterly lows.

    Put investments in holdings overseas where untouchable.

    Build a small business with talented people not friends.

    OTHER ADVICE

    Buy exceptional used luxury cars that quickly depreciate, rather than new cars. New car premium with financing is sucker’s money.

    IMPEDIMENTS: WOMEN (NESTING COSTS)

    This strategy requires a great deal of sacrifice on consumption.

    It is women who will generally prevent you from this strategy.

    However, if you follow this strategy you will attract much better women.

    This is the problem facing men.

    The want of women more than the want of wealth.

    With wealth come good women.

    Without wealth they rarely come.

    LOWERING COST OF WOMEN

    Grooming. fitness. friends. reading books.

    Non-fitness hobbies are sunk losses.

    Home investment rather than car investment.

    it’s not complicated. you are male. no matter what your demonstrable market value, you dramatically overrate your market value. always maximize your market value. This includes plastic surgery to remove ‘ethnic and genetic discounts’.

    WOMEN COSTS

    Girlfriends are cheap, and can be rotated every 18-24 months. They are the cheapest per-incident cost.

    Dates are a little more expensive per incident, but are time consuming and depend mostly upon your desirability. Men who can use this strategy don’t need the advice. They already use it.

    “Paid Women” are more expensive than dates per incident. Evidence is that they have negative externalities for future relationships because of the modification of your personality.

    “First Marriages” are more expensive than paid women if you accumulate ANY debt to finance them or life afterward.

    “Terminating Marriages” are more expensive than first marriages because you cannot make up the lost earnings, lost capital, and if you have children or alimony you are doomed to poverty in old age. Also the per incident cost increases rapidly after the first two years.

    “Lasting Marriages” are expensive, but are redeemable in old age since women do very well later in life and men not so much. Lasting marriages tend to rapidly decline in incidents.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 14:50:00 UTC

  • CLASS AND MARRIAGE TYPES Think of ANF as an upper middle class or upper class ma

    CLASS AND MARRIAGE TYPES

    Think of ANF as an upper middle class or upper class marriage where there is a lot of property. It’s an aristocratic marriage technology.

    Think of NF as a middle class marriage.

    Think of Traditional Families as a working class marriage.

    Think of Serial Marriages as a lower class marriage.

    Marriage types evolved to balance insurance from families without much property (Traditional) to insurance from property (ANF).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-20 10:21:00 UTC

  • “The idea of collapsing the hollywood market through revocation of their copyrig

    —“The idea of collapsing the hollywood market through revocation of their copyright gave me a momentary cathartic relief that I long to replicate permanently. Imagine if one day surpassing Shakespeare was not so absurdly out of reach.”—Jeremie Makell

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 12:04:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a pri

    QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a private space vs in a public space?

    (hints: 1-contractual commons. 2-via negativa. 3-trades)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:26:00 UTC

  • “This is so awesome. To finally find a way of looking at the world that doesn’t

    —“This is so awesome. To finally find a way of looking at the world that doesn’t cause me massive cognitive dissonance, as well as endless qualifiers in conversations.

    Propertarianism is the future of the right.

    Thanks Curt and Ely.”—- Daniel Travis

    Made my day.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 19:46:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS) PATENTS It must be product

    ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS)

    PATENTS

    It must be productive (fully informed, warrantied, voluntary).

    Therefore:

    a) IP must protect an investment (born cost), not squat an option: piss-on-a-fire-hydrant.

    b) IP cannot be used to deny a product to market, only to recoup an investment at some non-arbitrary multiple from a market.

    c) As a consequence it is hard to understand the grant of a monopoly rather than a commission. And it is hard to understand unquantified and long term IP.

    d) It is almost impossible to argue in favor of aesthetic ‘design patterns'(interpretive). It is quite easy to argue in favor of scientific, engineering, and software patterns(operational).

    e) it is human nature to retaliate against profiting from non-contribution (copying). This violates the test of productivity.

    In addition to productivity, grasping this subject requires an understanding full accounting (in this case opportunity costs),

    a) Polities form to decrease opportunity and transaction costs.

    b) Competition is the battle to seize opportunities created by density and property, and competition cannot form if one can squat opportunities (seize unhomesteaded property). Squatting opportunities is just a form of theft. Ergo IP that squats opportunities rather than recoups a risky investment is just theft by rent seeking.

    TRADEMARK

    A trademark is just another form of weight and measure that prevents misrepresentation. it is easy to argue for ‘design patterns’ (interpretive) limits on the use of them in a market – although it appears that enforcement is ridiculously overzealous because the law has no empirical means of measurement. This means of measurement is now available by the 2-3 second discretion test. Meaning that If a random group of people can glance at a pair of trademarks and not be be confused between or inferred by one another then empirically there is no confusion. Trademarks are very difficult to argue with.

    COPYRIGHTS

    Copyrights are the most questionable, although the market has solved this with the various Creative Commons and MIT etc licenses, which require consent for commercial use, but not for personal use. This preserves the demand for productivity for market participation.

    The central problem with copyrights is that they create opportunities for profitability in the ‘lower’ arts, producing low quality arts in volume and saturating the environment, the marketplace and the informational commons with low quality arts. The great works would not cease being produced by great artists if no money was available except by sponsorship. Conversely, the low arts would be impossible to fund. Revoking the total copyright on literary and artistic works, and defaulting to the creative commons instead, would collapse the hollywood market. Prohibiting dramatization of the lives of individuals would complete the suppression of their propagandism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:31:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS (important piece) —“Propert

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS

    (important piece)

    —“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson

    Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.

    1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:

    What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).

    As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    …. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    …. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    …. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    …. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    …. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    …. Ethics, morality, law, economics

    …. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    …. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    …. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    …. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:

    The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.

    3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST

    How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)

    4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:

    How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.

    CLOSING

    Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.

    Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.

    It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE (Eli Harman)(important idea) E

    “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE

    (Eli Harman)(important idea)

    Eli Harman: —“The term Curt Doolittle uses is “property in toto” (property in all of its forms.)

    But the basic idea is simple as day. It’s just that property is whatever people demonstrate the willingness and ability to claim and defend as their own, either individually, or in common.

    That could be physical, private, property, or it could be the market value of the same.

    It could be physical, common, property, like a park.

    It could be common, intangible, property, like public order and decency, the integrity of their language, truth in the “marketplace of ideas,” the ancestral gene pool, or something else.

    It could be private but intangible, reputation, intellectual property, honor, etc…”— Eli Harman

    MORE:

    The institution of Property is held in place by competition via judicial competition using natural law. We do not have to advocate for any form or limit to the definition of property in order to limit ‘discretionary rule’ and to retain ‘rule of law’. We merely have to demonstrate that any claim to property was obtained by homesteading, transformation (production), or exchange, without violating the One Law of Natural Law: the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externality.

    This technique is called Via Negativa: we do not define Property per se. We define only what Property is not: that which is claimed as property(control) but obtained by the imposition of costs upon that which others have invested to obtain an interest in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 20:56:00 UTC

  • “See, for example, the insightful comments by Childs (1914, 1-2) who notes ‘[t]h

    —“See, for example, the insightful comments by Childs (1914, 1-2) who notes ‘[t]he word “property”, in law, has two significations, meaning, first, “something owned”; and, second, “ownership”. … Property in its first sense – that of “something owned”, is classified into Real Property, or Realty, and Personal Property, or Personalty’.

    Blackstone uses the term ‘property’ in the sense of dominium (ownership right over a thing): see Blackstone (1893 [1753]), for example Chapter II. In contrast. Pollock in his seminal work on possession uses the term ‘ownership’, while the term ‘property’ mostly identifies the thing owned; see for example Pollock (1888, 8-12; also Pollock and Maitland 1898, Chapter IV).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 20:00:00 UTC

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.