Theme: Reform

  • “How much different things could be with a Propertarian law school curriculum.”

    by Daniel Roland Anderson [Y]ou know Curt, as I’ve been ruminating on this issue for the last year (I can’t believe Ive been following you that long already!), and I find myself becoming frustrated and angry at how much different things could be with a Propertarian law school curriculum. And I’ll bet the results would be highly durable, because the longer you went, the more naturally things would flow. The civil court case load would drop drastically I think. And the vastly more predictable results would make it much less likely that parties would take their cases to court, because any Propertarian lawyer would be able to tell his client very quickly what is likely to happen. (CD: made my month … ’cause EXACTLY.)

  • “How much different things could be with a Propertarian law school curriculum.”

    by Daniel Roland Anderson [Y]ou know Curt, as I’ve been ruminating on this issue for the last year (I can’t believe Ive been following you that long already!), and I find myself becoming frustrated and angry at how much different things could be with a Propertarian law school curriculum. And I’ll bet the results would be highly durable, because the longer you went, the more naturally things would flow. The civil court case load would drop drastically I think. And the vastly more predictable results would make it much less likely that parties would take their cases to court, because any Propertarian lawyer would be able to tell his client very quickly what is likely to happen. (CD: made my month … ’cause EXACTLY.)

  • (a) since when has any one ‘calmed down’, (b) since when has the libertarian pro

    (a) since when has any one ‘calmed down’, (b) since when has the libertarian program had any successes, (c) since when has it had any intellectuals, (d) since when has it had any formal works? (e) Libertarianism = Marxism of the Commons instead of Marxism of Private Property.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 23:17:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057411173866524672

    Reply addressees: @GeolibGeorge @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057385685018202112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @GonzoGeorgism

    @curtdoolittle @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen Nah, dude. Liberty does just fine when everyone calms the fuck down- in fact, much better I would argue than when violence is introduced into the equation, as it‘s an incredibly risk bet that liberty would come of such a development.

    Just relax. I’m a smooth talker; I got this.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057385685018202112

  • Propertarianism Will Make Their Lives Better and Fast

    October 30th, 2018 2:52 PM THIS IS ALL NORMIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND: PROPERTARIANISM WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES BETTER AND FAST – NOT BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAW IT MAKES POSSIBLE. [N]ormal people are not students of, or interested in, nor necessarily capable of conceiving the world via the tools of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can. If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand. Because the work consists largely of: (a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law. (b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge). (c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t. (d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens), (e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes. That’s it. That’s what they have to understand. The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible.

  • All you really need to know about propertarianism

    October 30th, 2018 3:01 PM

    [R]eductive version: “All you need to really understand about propertarianism is that it makes it possible to write law so these f—kers in the financial, media, academy, state, complex can’t keep stealing from you without repercussion, and because of that we can de-financialize, de-propagandize, de-politicize our country and live happily as one income families again.

  • Propertarianism Will Make Their Lives Better and Fast

    October 30th, 2018 2:52 PM THIS IS ALL NORMIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND: PROPERTARIANISM WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES BETTER AND FAST – NOT BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAW IT MAKES POSSIBLE. [N]ormal people are not students of, or interested in, nor necessarily capable of conceiving the world via the tools of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can. If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand. Because the work consists largely of: (a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law. (b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge). (c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t. (d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens), (e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes. That’s it. That’s what they have to understand. The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible.

  • THIS IS ALL NORMIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND: PROPERTARIANISM WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES BE

    THIS IS ALL NORMIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND: PROPERTARIANISM WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES BETTER AND FAST – NOT BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAW IT MAKES POSSIBLE.

    Normal people are not students of, or interested in, nor necessarily capable of conceiving the world via the tools of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can.

    If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand.

    Because the work consists largely of:

    (a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law.

    (b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge).

    (c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t.

    (d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens),

    (e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes.

    That’s it.

    That’s what they have to understand.

    The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 14:52:00 UTC

  • GETTING THESE IDEAS INTO A FORMAT FOR NORMIES —“I’m just trying to get your id

    GETTING THESE IDEAS INTO A FORMAT FOR NORMIES

    —“I’m just trying to get your ideas into a format that registers on a level with normal people aside from some superficial respect for scientific sounding words and phrases but instead upon a deeper spiritual and emotional level.”—- Christian Kalafut

    I understand.

    I cannot reduce logic of this depth to comforting analogy when it it precisely the use of comforting analogy for the purpose of deception that I have constructed it for.

    Normal people are not capable of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can.

    If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand.

    Because the work consists largely of:

    (a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law.

    (b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge).

    (c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t.

    (d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens),

    (e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes.

    That’s it.

    That’s what they have to understand.

    The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible.

    It would be as great a return as the scientific revolution. Because the vast majority of the problem ordinary people face today is that the systems by which they are defrauded are so complicated that it takes people like you can I to explain it to them – and why they suffer from it.

    This is very profound program. It is larger than marxism, and completes the scientific revolution by producing a logic and science of the social sciences, an an institutional means of suppressing the conquest of our civilization by deception, using marxism, postmodernism, feminism and the organized institution of deception by the state, academy, media, financial sector.

    That’s alll people need to know. They do not need to know calculus, only have a vague understanding of how statistics can be used.

    They do not need to undrestand propertarianism (whether you call it natural law, or the law of information).

    They just need to understand that these tools help us restore our civilization to civility.

    So, as a reminder:

    Again, there exists both EDUCATION (meaning via positiva) and DECIDABILITY(Science via negativa) I do the latter so that others may better teach the former.

    I don’t do RELIGION (Demand for Supernatural Authoritarian Conformity) or PHILOSOPHY (Persuasive Moral Sophistry).

    I do Law, Science, and Logic. (Decidability).

    And one day I hope either I or others will do EDUCATION.

    ps: ( My preference all along, and our strategy all along, has been that I do the theory others do the education, becuase frankly the difference between me and my frame of understanding and that of normies is that of a difference in species. I can’t empathize or sympathize well enough to do their storytelling.)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 13:51:00 UTC

  • Q: GREG: – What goal did you want to accomplish with this book? – Do you think y

    Q: GREG:

    – What goal did you want to accomplish with this book?

    – Do you think you accomplished it?

    — I see the book as providing motivation, arguments and strategy for gradually winning the discourse. Is that right?

    — What makes you think the idea of WN has reach? Especially with urbanites in the immigrant cities?

    — Can you explain bourgeoise morality( consumerism ) vs the civil society, vs the religious/spiritual models? (I think you missed the mark on that one).

    –You counsel against revisiting old regimes. Can you explain why that is? (I can explain why people are seeking a power narrative.)

    — Rhetorical Ammunition in support of which strategy?

    DIFFERENCES

    Greg: Philosophy, Education, Appeal to rational choice.

    Curt: Economics, Incentives, Law, License for Violence

    Greg: appeal to morality and reason.

    Curt: threat if reciprocity not met, licensing violence.

    Greg: we must via-positiva control culture and values. Requires permanent ideological indoctrination with all the vulnerabilities that have been seen in the 19th and 20thc.

    Curt: we must criminalize and punish that which is criminal, unethical, and immoral in display word and deed. Meaning: minority rule policed by individual self interest.

    Greg: Philosophy, Education, Religion: Via-positiva control

    Curt: Economics, Law, Markets: via negativa limits

    Greg: White Nationalism as ‘good and right’ and whites should prefer this (despite evidence they prefer doing nothing.)

    Curt: Nationalism instead of globalism, because it is the only means of forcing each of us to pay our own costs of domestication, and as such the only incentive not to exterminate, conquer and prey upon, or keep weak and powerless.

    Greg: reasons for whites to agree…

    Curt: voluntary disassociation and devolution of normative regulation to the states will create all the necessary incentives for coastals centrals, and souths to ‘go their own ways’. Collapse will occur by natural pressures of self interest.

    Greg: mobilize (something) (I don’t understand strategy)

    Curt: produce a constitution of rules, processes, and polities that are so desirable that we generate demand for change. Then threaten sufficient uprising by a tiny minority that the population and the military replace the government and enforce it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 15:35:00 UTC

  • And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social

    And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social order that you could put into operational terms, then you would. You don’t. Because if you did, the fraud and theft would be exposed for what it is: sophism for the purpose of institutional theft.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:37:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604316906680320

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289