Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Giving the little Guy Power

    May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark

    “The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”

    (Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?

  • Giving the little Guy Power

    May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark

    “The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”

    (Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?

  • 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.”

  • 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.”

  • I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Respo

    I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Responsibility of The Militia https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/i-can-only-unite-the-libertarian-conservative-and-religious-if-i-restore-responsibility-of-the-militia/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:11:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265843061109788672

  • I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Responsibility of The Militia

    May 22, 2020, 7:05 AM

    —“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle

  • I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Responsibility of The Militia

    May 22, 2020, 7:05 AM

    —“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle

  • If You Thought IQ Was Oppressive, Wait until Psychopathy Tests Are Common

    'IF YOU THOUGHT IQ WAS OPPRESSIVE, WAIT UNTIL PSYCHOPATHY TESTS ARE COMMON Because they're just as predictive if not more so than IQ. Lesson: via-negativa: intelligence is less an advantage that psychopathy is a disadvantage (where psychopathy means the soft sense of predisposition to antisocial behavior.)'
    IF YOU THOUGHT IQ WAS OPPRESSIVE, WAIT UNTIL PSYCHOPATHY TESTS ARE COMMON Because they’re just as predictive if not more so than IQ. Lesson: via-negativa: intelligence is less an advantage that psychopathy is a disadvantage (where psychopathy means the soft sense of predisposition to antisocial behavior.

  • If You Thought IQ Was Oppressive, Wait until Psychopathy Tests Are Common

    'IF YOU THOUGHT IQ WAS OPPRESSIVE, WAIT UNTIL PSYCHOPATHY TESTS ARE COMMON Because they're just as predictive if not more so than IQ. Lesson: via-negativa: intelligence is less an advantage that psychopathy is a disadvantage (where psychopathy means the soft sense of predisposition to antisocial behavior.)'
    IF YOU THOUGHT IQ WAS OPPRESSIVE, WAIT UNTIL PSYCHOPATHY TESTS ARE COMMON Because they’re just as predictive if not more so than IQ. Lesson: via-negativa: intelligence is less an advantage that psychopathy is a disadvantage (where psychopathy means the soft sense of predisposition to antisocial behavior.

  • Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    May 24, 2020, 12:23 PM 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.”