Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551829191 Timestamp) You can study Capitalism or Socialism or both… Or you can study rule of law by natural law and ignore both.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551984037 Timestamp) MOST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE? —“Curt Doolittle: What’s the most controversial social issue that is the most difficult to solve for propertarianism?”—Philip Clark Religion without exception. Abortion because it is so passionate and it is not a question of law but of choice on the part of the community. hence the necessity of small custom communities. I’ll say this:

    1. Abrahamic religion is a rather obvious bad – but it appears we are stuck with it.

    2. Abortion is very difficult because (a) it is never clear that we aren’t just trying to suppress sexuality (which is fine) but address the underling question not abortion, (b) whether it’s any different or worse than ‘exposure’ by which women have killed more lives than all wars in history combined. (c) whether it’s simply a better choice than putting children into terrible circumstances and hostile environments. (d) whether it’s tragic for many young couples who are not sufficiently adult and if there is any alternative, (e) that there shouldn’t be some additional penalty for failing to use protection. My opinion is keep it legal but make couples pay dearly for it over the long term. But it’s only an opinion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551981350 Timestamp) by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society like 1. Alcohol, Drugs 2. Pornography 3. Abortion 4. Death penalty Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now. I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand. This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video. —Answer— I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

    1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
      GIVEN
      a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.
    2. PORNOGRAPHY
      There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

    b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons. c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question. But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation. We can: d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it. I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell. e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.) f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”). We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes. There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s. Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

    1. ABORTION
      Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

    2. DEATH PENALTY
      The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

    So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551984037 Timestamp) MOST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE? —“Curt Doolittle: What’s the most controversial social issue that is the most difficult to solve for propertarianism?”—Philip Clark Religion without exception. Abortion because it is so passionate and it is not a question of law but of choice on the part of the community. hence the necessity of small custom communities. I’ll say this:

    1. Abrahamic religion is a rather obvious bad – but it appears we are stuck with it.

    2. Abortion is very difficult because (a) it is never clear that we aren’t just trying to suppress sexuality (which is fine) but address the underling question not abortion, (b) whether it’s any different or worse than ‘exposure’ by which women have killed more lives than all wars in history combined. (c) whether it’s simply a better choice than putting children into terrible circumstances and hostile environments. (d) whether it’s tragic for many young couples who are not sufficiently adult and if there is any alternative, (e) that there shouldn’t be some additional penalty for failing to use protection. My opinion is keep it legal but make couples pay dearly for it over the long term. But it’s only an opinion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552483548 Timestamp) The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552399444 Timestamp) There are two intersecting rules: 1. Kin selection 2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. This explains his list of ten common outputs.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552483548 Timestamp) The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552399444 Timestamp) There are two intersecting rules: 1. Kin selection 2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. This explains his list of ten common outputs.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552596289 Timestamp) GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT No. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit. NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud. Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity. I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1552598676 Timestamp) (must read) by James Fox Higgins I’m seeing a number of people who are struggling with some of the core ideas of Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism like property-in-toto which observes that one man’s ideal of the concept “property” may differ from another’s, just as in some cultures women are considered a man’s property which we in the Christian west find abhorrent. But the reality remains: in the Islamic state, women ARE the property of their men. It doesn’t make it morally right. It’s just an empirical fact. I thought Curt was Satan incarnate until it clicked for me that he is not in the business of moralisms like just about every other philosopher is. He’s not dealing with Platonic ideals. He’s dealing with Aristotelean empiricism. Not what ought to be (which is culturally relative), but what is (which is empirical). Words like “legitimate property” are ideals, but fail to argue against what really occurs: people defend with force that which they consider to be theirs. Those with the greater will to power, control such moral definitions. You really think the men of radical Islam will care about our Christian moralisms if they gain control of our lands? Might doesn’t make make right, might makes rule. You can talk about property moralistically if you like, but it has no bearing on the empirical reality. Wishful thinking seldom changes the reality of those who don’t accept your definitions but do have a greater will to power. This is what propertarianism is about: using language to describe what actually is, not what ought to be. Your ideals-based definitions of property are fine if you preface them with “I prefer” or “I wish” or “what would be ideal to me is” or “what is most in line with Christian ethics is”… But when it comes down to it… Bane OWNED Gotham city, until Batman took it back. Morality is only as good (in practise) as those with the will to protect it. Morality is God-given, but it is protected by the will and flesh of men. If you won’t fight for what is yours and what you believe in your heart to be right, you’re just relying on others to do it for you so you can quibble over the language of “legitimate property”. When the barbarians take your lands, livestock, and women, it is (empirically) theirs. Same applies to anything you value. Own it and defend it, or accept that others will.