Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— F

    May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH

    Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils. === UPDATE === To answer AunMarie Grooms’ question – P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange

    Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/actually-i-see-everything-in-terms-of-acquisition-retention-and-exchange/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 02:59:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265840143665180672

  • Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange

    May 26, 2020, 11:28 PM —“Curt sees everything in the context sexual gratification. It’s an interesting theory, but doesn’t explain why countless martyrs in the ancient world were voluntarily flayed alive, burned alive, eaten alive, etc., in the name of Christ. It doesn’t explain why children voluntarily died for Christ. It doesn’t explain why the barbarians, in a very short timeframe, put down their weapons and picked up crosses and scripture. Presumably, they didn’t have any problems with women. It simply doesn’t provide an adequate explanation for the dramatic shift in the world resulting from Christ.”—Emil Suric

    —“Curt Doolittle what’s your take on that?”—Skye Stewart

    I think that’s silly. (Actually i think it’s a rationalization to defend a prior. And Emil is not a foolish person. He is a product of his culture. And like most, even some of the best, he cannot overcome it.) I see everything: 1 – In context of acquisition. 2 – I understand how limited our agency (free will). 3 – I understand that the bias in our cognition has only three axis of variation, of which the physical differences in brain structure and chemical signaling between the sexes is most significant. (the others being developmental hierarchy and developmental degree). 4 – I understand that civilizations use strategies, myths, and grammars to defend them. 5 – And that people are largely ‘bots’ running that software on hardware with different biases. 6 – And it takes both a less biased brain and mind, and a tremendous amount of effort to free ourselves of those inheritances. Most of my work if not all of it provides a uniform system of measurement to circumvent those biases, which producing the first complete language of science: testimony. RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.

  • We Are Still Waiting for A Substantive Criticism of Propertarianism and … We Never Get One.

    Oct 7, 2019, 9:35 AM Here is another straw man (or what I call ’empty hat’).

    —“I am not sure what you want them to criticize. What has propertarianism accomplished? Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments. Some ideas based on statistical data sure, but no statistical data of a deployment of P in a real world government and/or legal system. Until such a time as this can be done people are left in a situation not unlike the pre Bolshevik era in which many people can speculate but have no real evidence. Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation. I do think it’s interesting that anybody who disagrees just doesn’t “understand.” Now that is a Marxist echo if I ever heard one.”— Clifton Knox

    I can criticize Marx on his first premises, and so can anyone else, we all know that the premises are false. Try to criticize P on any such premise. Go ahead.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    Same thing I can say for hoppe and rothbard, right? So how is that a defense of their work vs mine? P is a continuation of the anglo rule of law by creating the long-sought-after means of strict construction free of interpetation of the law. Pretty much the entire anglo world runs upon it (although with weak constitutions everywhere). You can’t claim rule of law isn’t practiced, only that P-law applied to speech isn’t practiced. And even there that’s questionable because we do it all the time in commercial cases.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    How long did it take Smith/Hume, Marx, Aristotle to be applied? Darwin is still struggling against the entire abrahamic project? How is that a criticism? I haven’t even published yet. Although we ARE teaching it and our movement is growing.

    —“Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments.”—

    P consists of multiple works. The logic of cognitive science, logic of social science, the logic of language, and the logic of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, how to construct a range of constitutions under it, and an explanation of why it evolved in the west, but could be imitated by any group able to construct a sufficient demographic by use of soft eugenics. P is a continuation of the anglo tradition of rule of law by the common law, where the common law is reducible to tort. It is the most continuous form of government in europe, the tradition, at least in the northern realm, is somewhere near 5000 years old. So rule of law, particularly by monarchy, and houses of the classes, was discovered in northern europe during the middle ages, but it’s not like we havent practiced it in some form or other for millennia. P is most analogous to a programming language – operational logic, which is where I took the model from – You can construct ANY form of government with it as long as it consists of articulation as reciprocity and trades within reciprocity. I know this because I”ve tried. Aristotle, and the Founders wrote a constitution, why didn’t Hoppe or Rothbard? That’s the only argumentative ‘test’ of a theory of politics, isn’t it? Even if survival of a polity under it is the only empirical test. If you can’t write a constitution you are just talking smack. Aristotle did, the founders did, and I am doing it.

    —“Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation”—

    Well you know, how is that a criticism vs hoppe and rothbard? It’s very easy to test P-logic and P-law. so far it’s flawless. P is a formal OPERATIONAL logic, and the first formal operational logic of social science, that can be used to compose constitutions, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. Mises didn’t understand (and neither does Hoppe) that all logics are falsificationary, and operational logic the most falsificationary possible by human beings because it requires we falsify every dimension of consistency (constant relations) perceivable by man. You can test P over and over again as many of us have now: try to state a falsehood in testimonial form, operational language. Do it and illustrate that you can. For example, both ordinary language logic and formal logic (symbolic) can be criticized, empiricism can be …. I’ve written an argument (“Ruling”) for every substantial question of political conflict I can find, in some degree of completeness. I know. I’ve done it. And people are always blown away by them. they just take time. What you have done so far is use a STRAW MAN. SO:

    (a) yes rule of law has been tried and is successful – its the holy grail of all peoples. We live under it. (b) every one of P’s operational logics is open to criticism by falsification. Go ahead and try. If it’s LAW it must be open to logical analysis. It’s not an empirical question. (c) all constitutions will produce conflict because we all seek advantages over others with different abilities and interests. However, rule of law (and the constitution I’m writing) prohibit the use of via-positiva coercion and force people using via-negativa-law into the markets for cooperation rather than tolerating imposition of costs upon others.

  • We Are Still Waiting for A Substantive Criticism of Propertarianism and … We Never Get One.

    Oct 7, 2019, 9:35 AM Here is another straw man (or what I call ’empty hat’).

    —“I am not sure what you want them to criticize. What has propertarianism accomplished? Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments. Some ideas based on statistical data sure, but no statistical data of a deployment of P in a real world government and/or legal system. Until such a time as this can be done people are left in a situation not unlike the pre Bolshevik era in which many people can speculate but have no real evidence. Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation. I do think it’s interesting that anybody who disagrees just doesn’t “understand.” Now that is a Marxist echo if I ever heard one.”— Clifton Knox

    I can criticize Marx on his first premises, and so can anyone else, we all know that the premises are false. Try to criticize P on any such premise. Go ahead.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    Same thing I can say for hoppe and rothbard, right? So how is that a defense of their work vs mine? P is a continuation of the anglo rule of law by creating the long-sought-after means of strict construction free of interpetation of the law. Pretty much the entire anglo world runs upon it (although with weak constitutions everywhere). You can’t claim rule of law isn’t practiced, only that P-law applied to speech isn’t practiced. And even there that’s questionable because we do it all the time in commercial cases.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    How long did it take Smith/Hume, Marx, Aristotle to be applied? Darwin is still struggling against the entire abrahamic project? How is that a criticism? I haven’t even published yet. Although we ARE teaching it and our movement is growing.

    —“Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments.”—

    P consists of multiple works. The logic of cognitive science, logic of social science, the logic of language, and the logic of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, how to construct a range of constitutions under it, and an explanation of why it evolved in the west, but could be imitated by any group able to construct a sufficient demographic by use of soft eugenics. P is a continuation of the anglo tradition of rule of law by the common law, where the common law is reducible to tort. It is the most continuous form of government in europe, the tradition, at least in the northern realm, is somewhere near 5000 years old. So rule of law, particularly by monarchy, and houses of the classes, was discovered in northern europe during the middle ages, but it’s not like we havent practiced it in some form or other for millennia. P is most analogous to a programming language – operational logic, which is where I took the model from – You can construct ANY form of government with it as long as it consists of articulation as reciprocity and trades within reciprocity. I know this because I”ve tried. Aristotle, and the Founders wrote a constitution, why didn’t Hoppe or Rothbard? That’s the only argumentative ‘test’ of a theory of politics, isn’t it? Even if survival of a polity under it is the only empirical test. If you can’t write a constitution you are just talking smack. Aristotle did, the founders did, and I am doing it.

    —“Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation”—

    Well you know, how is that a criticism vs hoppe and rothbard? It’s very easy to test P-logic and P-law. so far it’s flawless. P is a formal OPERATIONAL logic, and the first formal operational logic of social science, that can be used to compose constitutions, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. Mises didn’t understand (and neither does Hoppe) that all logics are falsificationary, and operational logic the most falsificationary possible by human beings because it requires we falsify every dimension of consistency (constant relations) perceivable by man. You can test P over and over again as many of us have now: try to state a falsehood in testimonial form, operational language. Do it and illustrate that you can. For example, both ordinary language logic and formal logic (symbolic) can be criticized, empiricism can be …. I’ve written an argument (“Ruling”) for every substantial question of political conflict I can find, in some degree of completeness. I know. I’ve done it. And people are always blown away by them. they just take time. What you have done so far is use a STRAW MAN. SO:

    (a) yes rule of law has been tried and is successful – its the holy grail of all peoples. We live under it. (b) every one of P’s operational logics is open to criticism by falsification. Go ahead and try. If it’s LAW it must be open to logical analysis. It’s not an empirical question. (c) all constitutions will produce conflict because we all seek advantages over others with different abilities and interests. However, rule of law (and the constitution I’m writing) prohibit the use of via-positiva coercion and force people using via-negativa-law into the markets for cooperation rather than tolerating imposition of costs upon others.

  • Measure of Men’s Cooperation

    Oct 10, 2019, 7:41 AM by José Francisco Mayora Property is the ultimate measure of men’s capacities to cooperate in both ways: violence (as a systemic force) against parasites -free riders- enemies, and collaboration between pairs in reciprocity to reach common goals (survival, ergo sovereignty). Free ACCESS to property (through competition, without artificial, unnatural, non optimal barriers to entry) is the best testosterone booster, and the best eugenic polity by itself. “Free property”, on the other hand (Socialism, verbigratia), is a fallacy for a real man: Because all assets are earned/produced/conquered property. Instead, delusional/feminine/parasitic tendency to think resources are just given, is only feasible for women subjected to a man, in a family procreating his children (a unique, beautiful privilege indeed…) In any way transplanting this model to a public policy is an optimal way to enhance human efficiency and development. Subsidizing the weak, the coward, the lazy, the degenerate. That’s public policy nowadays, the great moral hazard of full franchise democracy. Without patriarchy all the incentives to WIN (access to property, to real status, to enjoy the goals of endeavor) are GONE. Men lose in a second a million years of acquiring evolutive assets. Socialism (or any other non natural law based way of government) only creates non cooperative PARASITISM, and by doing so, natural dysgenics and decadence.

  • Measure of Men’s Cooperation

    Oct 10, 2019, 7:41 AM by José Francisco Mayora Property is the ultimate measure of men’s capacities to cooperate in both ways: violence (as a systemic force) against parasites -free riders- enemies, and collaboration between pairs in reciprocity to reach common goals (survival, ergo sovereignty). Free ACCESS to property (through competition, without artificial, unnatural, non optimal barriers to entry) is the best testosterone booster, and the best eugenic polity by itself. “Free property”, on the other hand (Socialism, verbigratia), is a fallacy for a real man: Because all assets are earned/produced/conquered property. Instead, delusional/feminine/parasitic tendency to think resources are just given, is only feasible for women subjected to a man, in a family procreating his children (a unique, beautiful privilege indeed…) In any way transplanting this model to a public policy is an optimal way to enhance human efficiency and development. Subsidizing the weak, the coward, the lazy, the degenerate. That’s public policy nowadays, the great moral hazard of full franchise democracy. Without patriarchy all the incentives to WIN (access to property, to real status, to enjoy the goals of endeavor) are GONE. Men lose in a second a million years of acquiring evolutive assets. Socialism (or any other non natural law based way of government) only creates non cooperative PARASITISM, and by doing so, natural dysgenics and decadence.

  • All money is a share in a particular economy

    All money is a share in a particular economy. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/all-money-is-a-share-in-a-particular-economy/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:19:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265694125321576451

  • All money is a share in a particular economy.

    Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).

  • All money is a share in a particular economy.

    Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).