Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • ON PROSTITUTION (Because someone just asked.) (“Taking a position on sex workers

    ON PROSTITUTION

    (Because someone just asked.)

    (“Taking a position on sex workers” is an awkward turn of phrase. So I’ll instead give an opinion on natural law of prostitution.)

    1 – As far as I know, since males must work for female services, and since, females (largely) decide, all male-female relationships consist of some sort of exchange. So, all but causal male and female relations are simply on a spectrum of prostitution – from purely reciprocal affection through to purely commercial service.

    2 – Prostitution (anywhere on the spectrum) can consist of a voluntary, productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of imposition of costs upon others by externality and is therefore ethical (interpersonally) and moral (extra-personally).

    3 – Practiced as a means of obtaining additional income in order to pay down debts, or to create investments, (the better Call Girls and Escorts) seems is very hard to argue with – although this tends to permit prostitution as a luxury for the middle and upper classes when it’s the working and lower classes (and especially the underclasses) that are both most likely to engage in it, and who are most likely to abuse it (for affection, for income), and then require medication (drugs) to tolerate it.

    4 – It is traditionally a last-ditch means of income for those who cannot find equal income by more desirable means. In many cases it is a means of economic survival. It is almost never a career a woman wants to remain in. It is just more economically rewarding (and more independent) than her available alternatives. And as such it is a difficult and unpleasant career to exit. As such it causes a dependency spiral.

    5 – The principle problem with prostitution, like many, many moral questions, is the externalities, not the activity. (a) it creates the greatest and most expensive moral hazard of unwanted reproduction, thereby burdening all of society, and (b) it is not an occupation that we would wish our family members to engage in, so we are constantly defending against it (just like credit, drug, and alcohol use). (c) it is a constant threat to breaking up families given the unnatural stress of intergenerational monogamy during the first twenty years of marriage when women devote attention to children because they must, and a man most feels the ‘demand’ for intercourse. (d) And families serve as the first industry, the first corporation, in the hierarchy of corporations we call ‘civilization’. (e) And while in history, prostitutes and traveling workers and soldiers fulfilled one another’s needs, by the 20th century we had achieved nearly universal pairing off (marriage) along with the near abandonment of migratory craftsmen and migratory soldiers.

    6 – Ergo, the principle issue with prostitution is – like all things – keeping it invisible to the commons. So like all sex, it is not a problem in a bedroom, or between individuals. And it is hard to argue with it as a ‘sugar daddy’ or ‘mistress’ or ‘select clients’, or ‘side job’. It is a problem, when it is either necessary for survival or transforms into a condition that requires medication. Since that medication is evidence of spiraling. And spiraling always ends up externalizing the costs upon the rest of the polity.

    7 – No person may take an action the restitution for which he cannot pay. And one simply cannot pay for the consequences to society that are produced by destruction of marriages, loss of life’s potential, and the vicious spiral of decline, medication, and crime that results from it.

    8 – Therefore, liability for spreading disease, liability for fomenting divorce, liability for encouraging others to engage in prositution, liability for supplying medication to preserve someone’s participation in prostitution, liability for creating the moral hazard of prostitution (baiting, entrapping, trafficing), and liability for ‘polluting the commons’ are all liabilities one must avoid – because one cannot perform sufficient restitution to correct for those consequences. But if any person out of public sight and sound offers and negotiates an exchange of sex for money – that is entirely ethical and moral.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 12:31:00 UTC

  • Stop blaming other people, and blame the one in the mirror.

    —“CURT: WHY ISN’T WINSTON CHURCHILL DEMONIZED FOR STARVING INDIANS TO FEED EUROPEANS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR”— A Hindu (Indian) A REPRIMAND FOR ASKING THE QUESTION (Part of my ongoing effort to make people look in the mirror rather than blame others) **The following is what I tell every ethnic group on earth. You aren’t special.** Your question is typical of a failed people wishing to blame others for their condition … 1 – Who grant themselves a social, economic, political, military and intellectual equality that does not exist. The very idea that all humans are equal is anti-empirical, and merely a means by which to encourage economic cooperation and competition rather than violent conflict. It is an ambition in cooperation not an existential property of humans, or human groups. Quite the opposite. 2 – Who assume that we grant each other equal standing for anything other than utilitarian reasons – in order to increase trade and reduce opportunity for conflict. 3 – Who assume that the utility of cooperation is endless, when it is merely whenever it is more rewarding than not cooperating. Or in the case of the primitive civilizations, when it is more profitable to “Mature them out of superstition(india), destructive traditions and customs (india), ignorance(india), illiteracy(india), poverty (india), overbreeding(india), child mortality, early death, systemic filthiness (india), disregard for maintenance of the commons (india), resistance to truth telling (india), pervasive self-justificationary excuse making (india), pervasive familial corruption(india), inability to develop a middle class (india), vast asymmetry between the size of the classes (india), who cannot defend themselves (muslim gunpowder empires), – than it is to rule them, profit from ruling them, and like a good parent, try to raise them out of that current state. 4 – Why should we pay any cost of parenting a primitive people unless it is profitable? History demonstrates quite clearly that extermination is more profitable than cooperation. 5 – When we are at war, why would we not favor family, kin, and civilization over primitive peoples? Isn’t that the reason for pervasive indian corruption? Favoring family over commons? 6 – And why should we treat undomesticated human animals any differently than any other undomesticated animal? The answer is, we don’t until we can trade with them. So the problem is, parenting a people until we can trade with them. LOOK IN THE MIRROR Whenever you want to blame someone else, exhaust your opportunity to blame the person, the family, the tribe, the nation, the civilization **in the mirror**. Despite having one of the three early great civilizations, and despite amassing capital (not wealth, but capital), why did India and indians consistently fail? Why could she not resist Whites? Why couldn’t she resist the mongols? Why couldn’t she resist the muslims? Why couldn’t she resist the british? And conversely, why did east asia and the west europe succeed? Why do indians always fail? West Europe probably exceeded china for the simple reasons of geography and culture. Had china not had to resist barbarians at her walls, she might have continued her expansion into the new world. On the other hand, once China explored the rest of the world, they saw nothing worth bringing home. Once the west saw the rest of the world, they saw opportunity for expansion. And so the west dragged primitive peoples out of primitivism (ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, infant mortality, early death, disease, corruption, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe hostile to human life. **We are not family, we are not kin, we are not friends, we are at best trading partners of convenience,** that fight by population, religion, means of government, and economic productivity, rather than fight by violence. And if you think otherwise you are simply fooled by your ability to absorb 3000 years of western civilization, and profit from doing so, while the british empire establishes the world trade destroyed by the muslims, and the americans pay the high cost of policing that system of world trade against primitive peoples of all civilizations, not the least of which were the russians, the chinese, the communists, and now the muslims. ANd no doubt, had india been powerful enough to mount a resistance, her also. We are all compatible at the feast. When in famine, it’s self, family, and kin we defend. No man is a hero to his debtors. Yet you are our debtors. Do not assume any equality whatsoever. All equality is merely a useful means of maturing you so that you’re profitable rather than a risk or cost. TRUTH: EVEN DARWIN AND MALTHUS WERE TOO KIND Territory is what you hold because you can. You can hold territory because you produce a people who can fight, and an economy to arm them against competitors. The purpose of ‘human rights’ – which are nothing but property rights – is not to produce human rights per se, but to demand states produce wealth by internal reformation rather than achieve wealth through conquest. In other words, it is a means of self defense. A form of cost reduction. The purpose of directing states to produce internal reformation and wealth so that they join the world economy, is to prevent another world war, and in no small part to convert from war by violence to war by commerce. For the simple reason that war by commerce tends to produce the opposite effect: continuous self improvement. This is the paradox of economic competition. If you do not understand this then you are still of a religious rather than scientific disposition, and believe in comforting falsehoods. **So stop blaming other people, and look in the mirror.**

  • Stop blaming other people, and blame the one in the mirror.

    —“CURT: WHY ISN’T WINSTON CHURCHILL DEMONIZED FOR STARVING INDIANS TO FEED EUROPEANS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR”— A Hindu (Indian) A REPRIMAND FOR ASKING THE QUESTION (Part of my ongoing effort to make people look in the mirror rather than blame others) **The following is what I tell every ethnic group on earth. You aren’t special.** Your question is typical of a failed people wishing to blame others for their condition … 1 – Who grant themselves a social, economic, political, military and intellectual equality that does not exist. The very idea that all humans are equal is anti-empirical, and merely a means by which to encourage economic cooperation and competition rather than violent conflict. It is an ambition in cooperation not an existential property of humans, or human groups. Quite the opposite. 2 – Who assume that we grant each other equal standing for anything other than utilitarian reasons – in order to increase trade and reduce opportunity for conflict. 3 – Who assume that the utility of cooperation is endless, when it is merely whenever it is more rewarding than not cooperating. Or in the case of the primitive civilizations, when it is more profitable to “Mature them out of superstition(india), destructive traditions and customs (india), ignorance(india), illiteracy(india), poverty (india), overbreeding(india), child mortality, early death, systemic filthiness (india), disregard for maintenance of the commons (india), resistance to truth telling (india), pervasive self-justificationary excuse making (india), pervasive familial corruption(india), inability to develop a middle class (india), vast asymmetry between the size of the classes (india), who cannot defend themselves (muslim gunpowder empires), – than it is to rule them, profit from ruling them, and like a good parent, try to raise them out of that current state. 4 – Why should we pay any cost of parenting a primitive people unless it is profitable? History demonstrates quite clearly that extermination is more profitable than cooperation. 5 – When we are at war, why would we not favor family, kin, and civilization over primitive peoples? Isn’t that the reason for pervasive indian corruption? Favoring family over commons? 6 – And why should we treat undomesticated human animals any differently than any other undomesticated animal? The answer is, we don’t until we can trade with them. So the problem is, parenting a people until we can trade with them. LOOK IN THE MIRROR Whenever you want to blame someone else, exhaust your opportunity to blame the person, the family, the tribe, the nation, the civilization **in the mirror**. Despite having one of the three early great civilizations, and despite amassing capital (not wealth, but capital), why did India and indians consistently fail? Why could she not resist Whites? Why couldn’t she resist the mongols? Why couldn’t she resist the muslims? Why couldn’t she resist the british? And conversely, why did east asia and the west europe succeed? Why do indians always fail? West Europe probably exceeded china for the simple reasons of geography and culture. Had china not had to resist barbarians at her walls, she might have continued her expansion into the new world. On the other hand, once China explored the rest of the world, they saw nothing worth bringing home. Once the west saw the rest of the world, they saw opportunity for expansion. And so the west dragged primitive peoples out of primitivism (ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, infant mortality, early death, disease, corruption, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe hostile to human life. **We are not family, we are not kin, we are not friends, we are at best trading partners of convenience,** that fight by population, religion, means of government, and economic productivity, rather than fight by violence. And if you think otherwise you are simply fooled by your ability to absorb 3000 years of western civilization, and profit from doing so, while the british empire establishes the world trade destroyed by the muslims, and the americans pay the high cost of policing that system of world trade against primitive peoples of all civilizations, not the least of which were the russians, the chinese, the communists, and now the muslims. ANd no doubt, had india been powerful enough to mount a resistance, her also. We are all compatible at the feast. When in famine, it’s self, family, and kin we defend. No man is a hero to his debtors. Yet you are our debtors. Do not assume any equality whatsoever. All equality is merely a useful means of maturing you so that you’re profitable rather than a risk or cost. TRUTH: EVEN DARWIN AND MALTHUS WERE TOO KIND Territory is what you hold because you can. You can hold territory because you produce a people who can fight, and an economy to arm them against competitors. The purpose of ‘human rights’ – which are nothing but property rights – is not to produce human rights per se, but to demand states produce wealth by internal reformation rather than achieve wealth through conquest. In other words, it is a means of self defense. A form of cost reduction. The purpose of directing states to produce internal reformation and wealth so that they join the world economy, is to prevent another world war, and in no small part to convert from war by violence to war by commerce. For the simple reason that war by commerce tends to produce the opposite effect: continuous self improvement. This is the paradox of economic competition. If you do not understand this then you are still of a religious rather than scientific disposition, and believe in comforting falsehoods. **So stop blaming other people, and look in the mirror.**

  • Adulthood begins with responsibility. Responsibility begins with having children

    Adulthood begins with responsibility. Responsibility begins with having children. Other countries lower marriage (sex) to 9 years old. The great mistake in classical liberal history was not providing the underclass with their own house, rather than handing over gov’t to peasants.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 14:47:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979369439140503552

    Reply addressees: @MMFlint

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978385565577031686

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MMFlint

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned since Parkland, it’s that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Other countries do it, we should too.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978385565577031686

  • One of the best reasons to learn how to use weapons is the development of agency

    One of the best reasons to learn how to use weapons is the development of agency. Because, you can get hurt, die, or kill someone if you lack agency.

    I know, the ‘big relentless machine’ in my head (the autistic urge for order in all things) gets a ‘rest’ when I am using weapons, for the simple reason ‘it’ is more concerned about not getting hurt by the weapons than it is about anything else. So I find working with weapons increases my agency. It gives me peace of mind: a sense of ‘calm’.

    This is the same effect that thrill seekers get by taking high risks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-28 11:12:00 UTC

  • You have no rights that others do not give you,and we do not give you rights, be

    You have no rights that others do not give you,and we do not give you rights, because you are criminals.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-27 20:36:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978732533591560193

    Reply addressees: @RockTheVote @ACLU @BklynDefender

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978686865896288256

    IN REPLY TO:

    @RockTheVote

    ICE approaches immigrants on the street, at work, in their car, at court.

    Remember: #WeHaveRights.

    Be prepared for encounters with ICE with this series from @ACLU & @BklynDefender .Watch the series and make an emergency plan! https://t.co/feRuJ1L1WD https://t.co/u27Uj2d5MH

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978686865896288256

  • Is It Ok For 13 Year Olds To Have Sex?

    In general, as the single most explanatory rule of behavior “Do only that which you can pay the restitution for if you fail.” Because while unstated, it is the rule by which both legal, moral, and normative blame is determined.

    They cannot pay and are not even cognizant of, the cost of restitution. And creating and bearing a child is perhaps the greatest crime moral crime, becasue it subjects family and indeed all of society, to moral hazard: they are forced to pay for your bad judgement, and the bad judgment of your parents and family, becasue they cannot morally correct your decision by killing the child. (Although that has been done frequently in history it is not done today.)

    When the family was the principle unit of economic production, when we lived in intergenerational households because of it, when children began contributing to the work of the household by age five, when child mortality was as much as 50%, death in childbirth common, and the vicissitudes of life unpredictable, pregnancy uncontrollable, children disposable, and women in particular had no control over their destinies we treated children very close to domesticated animals. And none of those conditions apply today – at least, for anyone who would ask the question, or read the post.

    For most of history 13–14 was the beginning of adulthood. Girls may be indeed mature enough to care for children by 16 and certainly 17 if they are under the care of an intergenerational household and began working in the household and caring for siblings from six or seven. Boys, if they are put to work by the same age, and have responsibility by 12 or 14, can be, like girls caretakers in an intergenerational household, especially if they have done any military service. But boys do not finish maturing until 22, just as girls are ending their optimum fertility (23). Our questionably effective education system has extended childhood development so much so that males are now mentally, emotionally, and socially mature only in their late twenties (if that). School is unquestionably effective through grade 5, but by grade 7 is only marginally effective. So we are effectively losing 5+ years of socialization, employment, and emotional development in order to keep children in school more than the entirely adequate 2–3 hours per day, if they participate in the work force in simple work after that (I started working holidays time at 7 years old. And by 10 and 11 worked holidays and whenever else I could. ) Under those conditions we could (as they do in eastern europe) have children earlier. Without those conditions, and perpetuating today’s environement, the single mother disaster will continue, and the boys that ‘check out of society and stay there’ will continue.

    So the answer to age of sex at 13 is “Not in this current world we live in.”

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ok-for-13-year-olds-to-have-sex

  • Is It Ok For 13 Year Olds To Have Sex?

    In general, as the single most explanatory rule of behavior “Do only that which you can pay the restitution for if you fail.” Because while unstated, it is the rule by which both legal, moral, and normative blame is determined.

    They cannot pay and are not even cognizant of, the cost of restitution. And creating and bearing a child is perhaps the greatest crime moral crime, becasue it subjects family and indeed all of society, to moral hazard: they are forced to pay for your bad judgement, and the bad judgment of your parents and family, becasue they cannot morally correct your decision by killing the child. (Although that has been done frequently in history it is not done today.)

    When the family was the principle unit of economic production, when we lived in intergenerational households because of it, when children began contributing to the work of the household by age five, when child mortality was as much as 50%, death in childbirth common, and the vicissitudes of life unpredictable, pregnancy uncontrollable, children disposable, and women in particular had no control over their destinies we treated children very close to domesticated animals. And none of those conditions apply today – at least, for anyone who would ask the question, or read the post.

    For most of history 13–14 was the beginning of adulthood. Girls may be indeed mature enough to care for children by 16 and certainly 17 if they are under the care of an intergenerational household and began working in the household and caring for siblings from six or seven. Boys, if they are put to work by the same age, and have responsibility by 12 or 14, can be, like girls caretakers in an intergenerational household, especially if they have done any military service. But boys do not finish maturing until 22, just as girls are ending their optimum fertility (23). Our questionably effective education system has extended childhood development so much so that males are now mentally, emotionally, and socially mature only in their late twenties (if that). School is unquestionably effective through grade 5, but by grade 7 is only marginally effective. So we are effectively losing 5+ years of socialization, employment, and emotional development in order to keep children in school more than the entirely adequate 2–3 hours per day, if they participate in the work force in simple work after that (I started working holidays time at 7 years old. And by 10 and 11 worked holidays and whenever else I could. ) Under those conditions we could (as they do in eastern europe) have children earlier. Without those conditions, and perpetuating today’s environement, the single mother disaster will continue, and the boys that ‘check out of society and stay there’ will continue.

    So the answer to age of sex at 13 is “Not in this current world we live in.”

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ok-for-13-year-olds-to-have-sex

  • And one of the lessons that we can best provide is to make an example of a parti

    And one of the lessons that we can best provide is to make an example of a particularly infantile child just to remind the rest of the vermin that grownups do exist, and there is a limit to our paternal tolerance.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 22:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976225113455677440

    Reply addressees: @EliRadninyc @AndreasOpinions @dvalls1006 @LolitaResist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976224449216286720

    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/976224449216286720

  • Now, any good parent, relative, kin, neighbor or nobility will exercise some mod

    Now, any good parent, relative, kin, neighbor or nobility will exercise some modicum of patience – usually to let the children vent their energies – at some time we must invest a bit of our energies in necessary disciplinary action. otherwise the children will never mature.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 22:31:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976224770990706689

    Reply addressees: @EliRadninyc @AndreasOpinions @dvalls1006 @LolitaResist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976224077823258624

    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/976224077823258624