Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BE

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS.

    Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’)

    Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.”

    This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance.

    Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency.

    However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency.

    In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 12:26:00 UTC

  • “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.” (worth rep

    “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.”

    (worth repeating)

    —“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems.

    Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— @[100027748725265:2048:GL Sevier]Updated Oct 22, 2019, 11:22 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 11:22:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATING P FOR MASS CONSUMPTION? How do we disambiguate P-Method, P-Law, a

    DISAMBIGUATING P FOR MASS CONSUMPTION?

    How do we disambiguate P-Method, P-Law, and a P-Constitution Template, and P-Constitutions for Each Polity?

    0. The system of thought we call propertarianism – that would be better called ‘natural law’ or ‘Testmonialism’ – is a methodology that completes the sciences by completing the transformation of traditional philosophical categories of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics as well as the pseudo-sciences of psychology, sociology, and political science into a single science with a uniform fully commensurable operational vocabulary and logic. Where “Operational” might be better stated in philosophical terms “realism, naturalism, operationalism (human actions).

    1. With this uniformity provides the ability to write constitution and law in value-neutral prose fully commensurable across all peoples, all, disciplines and all contexts.

    2. We can write any constitution for any people using any group strategy in this P-law – as long as we state it under realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, and reciprocity – where reciprocity includes testimonial speech.

    3. The only unique properties of a P-law constitution are (a) the suppression of false and ir-reciprocal speech, (b) operational and technical language that prohibits misinterpretation, interpretation, and arbitrary extension.

    4. Using P-method, and P-law, I wrote the The P-consitution as a template for a flexible government that varies from authoritarian to market to redistributive dependent upon circumstances that create demand for different government, and it includes a set of options for government from authoritarian or authoritarian monarchy to multi-house social democracy, and everything in between.

    5. The P-Constitution for the USA is tailored for the problems of the Anglo Civilization (UK, USA, Canada, and Australia-NZ), and I would need to tailor one for western Europe, eastern europe (Intermarium), and one for Russia. But it’s possible to write one for any and every civilization in entirely truthful terms – and there is little reason to do otherwise, since each civilization survives by competing on its terms, and its terms can be stated truthfully (realism, naturalism, operationalism, testimonialism).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 11:37:00 UTC

  • And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alt

    And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alternative for the left is so terrible they will agree. That is why. I am very, very, good at what I do.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 19:37:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185641222611841024

    Reply addressees: @PaulB76720253 @irenaissancemn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185641029145419776

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PaulB76720253 @irenaissancemn I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-marxist, pre-postmodern, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, where hostile cities converted to city states.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1185641029145419776

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @PaulB76720253 @irenaissancemn I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-marxist, pre-postmodern, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, where hostile cities converted to city states.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1185641029145419776

  • I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-marxist, p

    I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-marxist, pre-postmodern, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, where hostile cities converted to city states.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 19:37:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185641029145419776

    Reply addressees: @PaulB76720253 @irenaissancemn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185639782417874945

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185639782417874945

  • “I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-postmoder

    —“I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-postmodern, pre-marxist, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the defense of the states, and to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, and where hostile cities are involuntarily converted to city states, and where all local norm, custom, and tradition is determined by at the local level, and only investment at the state. … And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alternative for the “Left” is so terrible they will agree rather than risk it. That is why have confidence – I am very slow and deliberate and thorough, but I am very, very, good at what I do. It will take 1/3 of 1% of our males to make it happen, and it will happen quickly. And frankly we will hope the enemy resists – because “—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 15:42:00 UTC

  • FB FUTURE Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we w

    FB FUTURE

    Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we were to break it up I would recommend breaking up publisher(content and advertising) and platform organizations, and remove Mark from the platform. And then open up the platform to other publishers. This preserves the income for the shareholders but eliminates the interference by the publisher (content control). I would do the same for google. Both of which are now infrastructure, and communication and business necessities – particularly for small international businesses.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 08:02:00 UTC

  • DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. It sounds horrible to you but the easiest answer is to hir

    DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

    It sounds horrible to you but the easiest answer is to hire 10,000 American lawyers to run your courts. This is the same strategy ancient empires used by using people from remote parts of the empires to govern populations they had no knowledge of. It works perfectly in past and present.

    Everyone says they want good government, but they cannot have good government without good courts, and either soldiers or police who enforce the judgement of the court.

    The court constrains the government.

    Your constitutions are probably fine.

    Your government is probably not fine. it is a government.

    What makes the west successful is not our governments.

    IT IS OUR LAW. Law is a ‘Religion’ in for our people.

    Especially in America.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-09 21:41:00 UTC

  • On the other hand you use the pseudonym of a man who recommended we retreat to p

    On the other hand you use the pseudonym of a man who recommended we retreat to private property communes rather than engage in revolt whether centralized or distributed – as if there are borderlands left defendable without industrial scale commons. I mean, who fantasizes? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 21:45:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180962256219201542

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180959642152837126

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon I would consider a unified revolt impossible and foolish. However, neither the government nor the world thought leadership considers that a threat. Instead a distributed, cyclically self reinforcing conflict – like the one we are seeing evolve every single day. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180959642152837126

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon I would consider a unified revolt impossible and foolish. However, neither the government nor the world thought leadership considers that a threat. Instead a distributed, cyclically self reinforcing conflict – like the one we are seeing evolve every single day. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180959642152837126

  • The only reason anyone would follow Yang’s ridiculousness is lack of awareness o

    The only reason anyone would follow Yang’s ridiculousness is lack of awareness of our Propertarian Solutions that fix the same problems, but don’t make it worse.

    Restore western civilization – don’t destroy it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 20:17:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180577717273497600