Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • MHO: the only test of one’s capacity is his mastery of this hierarchy: Historica

    MHO: the only test of one’s capacity is his mastery of this hierarchy: Historical, Moral, Rational, Critical, Decidable, and Prescriptive argumetns in propertarianism.

    Individuals do not need to master all of them. Only those that they can make use of.

    1) The sets of narratives describing the historical evolution of truth and incremental suppression and how this reduces all costs and forces all people into productive production and exchange.

    HISTORICAL

    2) The division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy as demonstration of reproductive strategies, and voluntary exchange as the only means of making use of that disparate information. The evolution of a market for goods and services (consumption) and a market for commons (investment).

    MORAL

    3) The strict construction of propertarian arguments as a description of incentives, in various matters of human cooperation and conflict.

    RATIONAL

    4) The strict construction of criticism of statements under testimonialism using all 7/8 criterion

    CRITICAL (SCIENTIFIC)

    5) The strict construction of law enforcing all of the above in matters of dispute.

    DECIDABLE

    6) The construction of propertarian institutions.

    PRESCRIPTIVE

    )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-06 08:44:00 UTC

  • Cunning improves one’s ability and incentive to steal. Morality improves one’s a

    Cunning improves one’s ability and incentive to steal. Morality improves one’s ability and incentive to refrain from stealing.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 17:34:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/694212134855647234

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/693864701483024384

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    That the average insane degenerate communist progressive is smarter than the average Twitter rightist is, sadly, simply a fact. …

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/693864701483024384

  • We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…

    [W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.

  • We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…

    [W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.

  • ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provisio

    ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”***

    (there we go)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-31 14:10:00 UTC

  • IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF. I mean. It’s that simple r

    IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF.

    I mean. It’s that simple right? Truth hurts sometimes.

    Being called out as a thief is definitely unpleasant. Propertarianism and Testimonialism make your thievery visible. You’ve been caught. I understand that you don’t like being caught. I understand that thieves blame everyone else other than themselves.

    If my work is offensive then you’re just a thief. Sorry. Just how it is.

    If you don’t understand it, then you just don’t understand it. Your understanding is no more a measure of my work than your understanding of any other logical specialization. Incomprehension is not a criticism. Nor is complexity a criticism. There are many counter-intuitive complexities in human experience.

    If you think it’s incomplete, or could be better, well then, I agree with you. Its incomplete and it could be better.

    If you think my ambitions are unwise, well, then I acknowledge that possibility.

    But in my experience finding the work offensive is an attempt to preserve deceit and theft.

    The Transcendence of man requires that we clean our intellectual house, incrementally increase suppression of parasitism, and create great monuments to our success.

    We have likely passed peak human. Smaller brains, lower intelligence, higher aggression, and higher reproduction, can destroy mankind’s promise.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-30 06:13:00 UTC

  • My @Quora answer to Libertarianism: could the government be considered as a powe

    My @Quora answer to Libertarianism: could the government be considered as a powerful landowner and could its power … https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=c8ec7eb4

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 08:10:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690446348588572672

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • Violence can be used to construct property rights or destruct them. Violence is

    Violence can be used to construct property rights or destruct them.

    Violence is a neutral concept. Might makes right in the construction of rights and wrong in the destruction of them.

    The question is not whether might makes right….. But whether rights can be constructed without might.

    Logic and evidence suggest no.

    The strong posses Liberty.

    The weak posses permission.

    Numbers matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 14:59:00 UTC