Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • I guess the verdict of the jury of one’s subjective preference, personal incenti

    I guess the verdict of the jury of one’s subjective preference, personal incentives, and market demand is in, and that Stefan Molyneux was always a therapist w/o responsibility to the polity just like Jordan Peterson – not a leader evolving with the polity. @StefanMolyneux

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 14:56:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180859260521111554

  • Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law

    Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law to Ghetto Ethics of diasporic peoples having no, and taking no, responsibility for commons. It’s just common property parasitism rather than private property parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:57:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180814232344055808

    Reply addressees: @psionin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @psionin Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including *commons*, or what we call ‘government’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @psionin Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including *commons*, or what we call ‘government’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

  • The problem with Hans’ “Physical Removal” is that it violates Reciprocity by ext

    The problem with Hans’ “Physical Removal” is that it violates Reciprocity by externality. Take responsibility. Solve the problem. 😉

    —update—

    —-“hmm it’s a litter issue. Nuclear waste issue. Hazard left for others to deal with and those others might be descendants.”—Steve Pender

    —I’m not certain what you mean, but if you’re basically saying “deal with the pathological people in your society without foisting them upon others”, I agree.”— Justin Odiogn

    That’s all I was saying. But… You’re not getting the joke.

    “noose, pike, and pyre.”

    It’s not that much of an inside joke.

    It’s not that hard to ‘get’.

    It’s the equivalent of “K— them all and let god sort it out”

    Like i’ve said before, I’m not that funny. But I still try. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:14:00 UTC

  • Restitution is easy. The Prevention will be brutal. Because we must create a pun

    Restitution is easy. The Prevention will be brutal. Because we must create a punishment that provides sufficient incentive, that the repetition of the female strategy of undermining civilization, evolution, and our transcendence into the gods we imagine is ever again attempted.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 15:58:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180512655745994753

    Reply addressees: @nytopinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180512411960389637

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @nytopinion So who are the producers of the propaganda, arts, literature, architecture and schools of the postwar era attempting to create the same destruction of the third great civilization of european peoples? Our law requires Restitution and Prevention.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180512411960389637

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @nytopinion So who are the producers of the propaganda, arts, literature, architecture and schools of the postwar era attempting to create the same destruction of the third great civilization of european peoples? Our law requires Restitution and Prevention.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180512411960389637

  • Only an idiot would do a charlottesville and richard deserves a lot of responsib

    Only an idiot would do a charlottesville and richard deserves a lot of responsibility for it. Fking NS bullshit. I didn’t go because I just could sense it would be a fkup. Leftists do demonstrations. The Right just flips the switch.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 00:42:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180282023505727489

    Reply addressees: @TUtternonsense @_JJ_14

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180279565496664066

    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/1180279565496664066

  • Well, my work makes it almost impossible to lie in law without being punished fo

    Well, my work makes it almost impossible to lie in law without being punished for it. So hopefully I can buy us a couple of centuries before we have to react to some new kind of scamming the law. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 20:12:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180214209658966016

    Reply addressees: @KurtKurtking @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180181731669876737

    IN REPLY TO:

    @KurtKurtking

    @curtdoolittle @JohnMarkSays Agree with you, Curt, on the Natural Law. But we have to consider getting to it from the typical applied human Law: THEY (the POWERFUL) constantly lie to you. https://t.co/7JZdRLXro2 /

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180181731669876737

  • Q: How Can Violence Be Reciprocal (moral)?

    Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)?

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL: Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

  • Q: How Can Violence Be Reciprocal (moral)?

    Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)?

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL: Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

  • Legit Ad Hom’s Against Doolittle

    [J]ust ’cause it’s come up again.  I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself. I’m not. List of legitimate Ad Hom’s.

    • Multiple marriages. Put business before family.
    • Multiple relationships. Put business and philosophy before relationship.
    • High risk biz ventures most of which succeeded – not all – producing expected downsides when not.
    • Ruthless biz practices, some of which made others rich, that resulted in various suits, as well as various tremendous windfalls.
    • Continuous civil warfare during and after divorce that will continue for the next four to six years easily.
    • Mid life crisis after near death experiences resulted in a bit of a wild ride for a bit.
    • Obsessively – zero tolerance for ‘slights’.
    • Will fight to the end on ‘principle’ – even if it makes no material sense to do so.
    • More than slightly clueless about normie life and experience, and insensitivity to normie world views.
    • Considers other people subjects in social science experiments.
    • Considers each business an experiment in social science.
    • Wealth is merely a means of financing experiments in social science.
    • Considers people vehicles for achieving success in business or social science.
    • “One cares for domesticated animals and pets, one cannot engage in reciprocity with them.” or more fashionably: “A lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep. “
    • Definitely part of the Yuppie-Wall Street Generation.

    These are legit ad homs. They are true. Everyone knows them. They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences. I am not a good person. I succeed because I am an infovore, competitive, with ruthless, predatory, and driven. That is all. I am however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation. I am also not a normie living a working class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. I am not a good person, and don’t claim to be. Truth doesn’t require I be a good person. It requires only that my work is not false. -CD

  • Legit Ad Hom’s Against Doolittle

    [J]ust ’cause it’s come up again.  I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself. I’m not. List of legitimate Ad Hom’s.

    • Multiple marriages. Put business before family.
    • Multiple relationships. Put business and philosophy before relationship.
    • High risk biz ventures most of which succeeded – not all – producing expected downsides when not.
    • Ruthless biz practices, some of which made others rich, that resulted in various suits, as well as various tremendous windfalls.
    • Continuous civil warfare during and after divorce that will continue for the next four to six years easily.
    • Mid life crisis after near death experiences resulted in a bit of a wild ride for a bit.
    • Obsessively – zero tolerance for ‘slights’.
    • Will fight to the end on ‘principle’ – even if it makes no material sense to do so.
    • More than slightly clueless about normie life and experience, and insensitivity to normie world views.
    • Considers other people subjects in social science experiments.
    • Considers each business an experiment in social science.
    • Wealth is merely a means of financing experiments in social science.
    • Considers people vehicles for achieving success in business or social science.
    • “One cares for domesticated animals and pets, one cannot engage in reciprocity with them.” or more fashionably: “A lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep. “
    • Definitely part of the Yuppie-Wall Street Generation.

    These are legit ad homs. They are true. Everyone knows them. They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences. I am not a good person. I succeed because I am an infovore, competitive, with ruthless, predatory, and driven. That is all. I am however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation. I am also not a normie living a working class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. I am not a good person, and don’t claim to be. Truth doesn’t require I be a good person. It requires only that my work is not false. -CD