Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549822275 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS. (repost) In other words, it’s the solution to social science. —“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the “propertarian ideology”. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with “propertarian ideology” have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus You cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud. It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.” – Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549826567 Timestamp) QUESTION. (SERIOUS) In the choice of the names: “The White Law” –or– “The Natural Law of European Peoples” –or– “Propertarianism” What are the costs and benefits of using each? Thoughtful rather than emotional answers please. Not what you think, but what will people think as we scale?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549820681 Timestamp) MORALITY AMORALITY CONFLICT DESPOTISM AND THE SOCIOPATHIC MIND. MORALITY Some basis of morality either exists or it does not. The science, law, and logic say that such a thing is called reciprocity, and reciprocity within the bounds of proportionality, and outside of the bounds of proportionality exit is necessary for any disadvantaged party. And that prohibition on or unbearable cost of exit is the origin of conflict, fighting, and war. AMORALITY If no basis for morality exists, then all that is required is power to force whatever order upon people that is useful. This is a license for any and all for corruption at every level. In other worse, one has rule of law and decidability, or one has rule by man and authority. CONFLICT The evolution of the law has been a battle between corruption (rule by man) and morality (rule of law). Even socialism (rule by man) and capitalism (rule of law), and globalism (rule by men) and nationalism (rule of law), and representative democracy (rule by men), and direct democracy (rule of law) are simply various examples of a long standing battle between the moral men who produce and the immoral men to live by parasitism. DESPOTISM The despot’s argument: empower elites further in order to garner favor (suck up to more successful people). Seize power and opportunity at every opportunity. Incrementally exercise pent up envy, anger, hatred, in order to gain pleasure and relief. SOCIOPATHY Sociopaths use a well documented set of tactics. They are natural liars. They will choose to lie even if the truth is just as advantageous. And once you know how lies are constructed, by using suggestion to force appeal to intuition, then you are no longer vulnerable to liars. The Sociopath’s Mind: “I must dominate, rule, punish, harm” “I have had no achievements” “I have no resources” “I am not likable or desirable” “I cannot build a following nor participate in one” “I cannot build an organization nor participate in one” “I can only use deceit and cunning because of this” “I will use deceit and cunning to self promote at all times” “I will shift locations, alliances, positions, tactics, claims, anything, and deny anything else, in order to exercise my sociopathy and related rewards” This person will always favor despotism because it is in his interests. Because there is no other means by which those without merit can exercise any agency over those others they envy, despise, and hate. THAT IS A CHAIN OF REASONING.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549823718 Timestamp) NOBLESSE OBLIGE: THE DUTY OF THE ELITE: A RECIPROCITY “Noblesse oblige” is generally used to imply that with wealth, power, and prestige come responsibilities. In ethical discussion, “Noblesse oblige” summarizes a moral economy wherein privilege (ability and achievement) must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege ability and (achievement) or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency. It has also been used to describe a person taking the blame for something in order to solve an issue or save someone else.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549822275 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS. (repost) In other words, it’s the solution to social science. —“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the “propertarian ideology”. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with “propertarian ideology” have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus You cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud. It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.” – Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549919526 Timestamp) OUR TRIBES AND PACKS MUST WORK TOGETHER TOWARD A SHARED END: OUR SURVIVAL Look. It’s just reciprocity. Don’t swing at me and mine. It’s not complicated. I don’t swing at others unless they swing first …. or say something so stupid it’s incomprehensible to me (Peterson on “Darwinian Truth” or Taleb on “IQ”… omfg., or basically whenever (((anyone))) in the libertine movement makes and excuse for high fraud.). I stated my vision again yesterday. And I’ll state it more clearly here: Men form packs, and packs unite in tribes. They form tribes to concentrate forces behind leaders. Yet, there are only three means of coercion: 1 – force vs defense, 2 – payment vs missed payment, 3 – and inclusion vs ostracization. So we form groups of: 1 – Force (authoritarian, force), 2 – Operation (rule of law and commerce, science), and 3 – Morality (religion, moralism). These constitute the three political archetype of aggression, exchange, and boycott. We also seem to have adopted the GSRRM of the left (women’s strategy) which is undermining, and technically speaking that is an extension of boycott, moralizing, religion. And because of these three cognitive frameworks, we need leaders of each personality group, cognitive fram, leadership, and strategy. Because together we form a division of knowledge perception comprehension and labor. But here is what it will boil down to. The religious provide human shields (defense), the libertarians provide the communication, propaganda and supply, and the fascists fight. And as far as I know this is the history of how people work albeit with significant overlap. Something of this nature will evolve. The only thing that matters is that: A) we will restore some sort of authority rather than the chaos of the parasites against our people. B) we will restore a constitution and an political and bureaucratic system of policy by which our people are no longer preyed upon by. C) we will restore our religion to the status of a conditional monopoly since all religions contain morals, ethics, laws which are incompatible and lead only to middle eastern chaos and despotism. This is how it will be. Because this is how it must be. Nothing else is possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549919526 Timestamp) OUR TRIBES AND PACKS MUST WORK TOGETHER TOWARD A SHARED END: OUR SURVIVAL Look. It’s just reciprocity. Don’t swing at me and mine. It’s not complicated. I don’t swing at others unless they swing first …. or say something so stupid it’s incomprehensible to me (Peterson on “Darwinian Truth” or Taleb on “IQ”… omfg., or basically whenever (((anyone))) in the libertine movement makes and excuse for high fraud.). I stated my vision again yesterday. And I’ll state it more clearly here: Men form packs, and packs unite in tribes. They form tribes to concentrate forces behind leaders. Yet, there are only three means of coercion: 1 – force vs defense, 2 – payment vs missed payment, 3 – and inclusion vs ostracization. So we form groups of: 1 – Force (authoritarian, force), 2 – Operation (rule of law and commerce, science), and 3 – Morality (religion, moralism). These constitute the three political archetype of aggression, exchange, and boycott. We also seem to have adopted the GSRRM of the left (women’s strategy) which is undermining, and technically speaking that is an extension of boycott, moralizing, religion. And because of these three cognitive frameworks, we need leaders of each personality group, cognitive fram, leadership, and strategy. Because together we form a division of knowledge perception comprehension and labor. But here is what it will boil down to. The religious provide human shields (defense), the libertarians provide the communication, propaganda and supply, and the fascists fight. And as far as I know this is the history of how people work albeit with significant overlap. Something of this nature will evolve. The only thing that matters is that: A) we will restore some sort of authority rather than the chaos of the parasites against our people. B) we will restore a constitution and an political and bureaucratic system of policy by which our people are no longer preyed upon by. C) we will restore our religion to the status of a conditional monopoly since all religions contain morals, ethics, laws which are incompatible and lead only to middle eastern chaos and despotism. This is how it will be. Because this is how it must be. Nothing else is possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.

    (FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.

    —“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish

    Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.

    1. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

    2. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

    3. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

    4. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

    5. The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….

    Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. EUROPEAN LIBERTARIANISM (Sovereignty) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, mercantilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family exept for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information. === DEFINITIONS === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

    1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob.

    2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488.

    3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281.

    4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614.

  • No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.

    (FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.

    —“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish

    Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.

    1. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

    2. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

    3. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

    4. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

    5. The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….

    Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. EUROPEAN LIBERTARIANISM (Sovereignty) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, mercantilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family exept for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information. === DEFINITIONS === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

    1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob.

    2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488.

    3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281.

    4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550076916 Timestamp) —-“One does not become a Propertarian. One only discovers, sooner or later, that one has always been one — that, by nature, one could not possibly be anything else.” —Savitri Devi (edited posthumously by Matt Lawlor)