Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • PRIVACY Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay

    https://mobile.twitter.com/narmno/status/595057396638187520ON PRIVACY

    Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay the cost of morals, norms, and legal codification of them when we enter in to the commons. What occurs in our homes is only relevant if it causes externalities. And what is in our minds is ungovernable. This is a vast subject which I won’t go into further, but privacy exists iff and only if we preserve the objectively moral and the normative and legal observation of if. What has changed is only that with vast increases in our exposure to information about one another, two outcomes are produced: (a) a reduction in the LOCAL influence of any of our actions, and (b) a realization that we are all open to the same errors, make the same errors, and mature out of those errors with experience; and (c) the lowering of the impact of negatives on our reputations if our errors are unselfish and merely ignorant in nature. All three of these factors REDUCE the impact of foolish human actions on the moral, normative, and legal commons. As such privacy is less valuable and useful than it WAS in the past – at least in matters of COGNITION and OPINION, if not crime.

    ON LEANING – IN

    Still thinking about this.

    There is no material value to women’s entry into the work force. The value is in that women are not PROHIBITED from entering the work force, and are therefore less dependent on marriage for sustenance, satisfaction, and reproduction. However, women abused their entry into the franchise by parasitically obtaining through the state, the income of marriage without providing the care-taking, sex, and compromise of marriage. So for men, adding women to the franchise merely expanded the state, made them slaves of the state, decreased the value of taking ownership for and paying the cost of the commons (society), caused rapid expansion of dysgenia, insured their poverty and loneliness in old age, and led a large number to suicide. Women destroyed the compromise. Without women’s votes the left would never obtained power in any country, and used it to destroy western civilization. I see similar effects in Japan. But I have the disadvantage of limited on the ground experience, and must work entirely from data.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 03:25:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II

    —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?”—

    The mother parasitically consumes the life of the child killed.

    The mother parasitically imposes costs on society if she is not capable of provision.

    The only non violation of the prohibition in parasitism that we call morality is to bear, and support a child.

    As such the entire feminist movement other than property rights rendering all equal under the law is an immoral deceit for the single purpose of escaping resposubikity for her inability to control her impulsesu. Just as the entire penal system exists to punish men who act parasitically, the moral code, property rights and family structure evolved to prevent women from engaging in parasitism.

    The manorial system and our prudish morality existed largely to prevent reproduction by immoral women who would then subject the rest of us to moral hazard – in other words, bearing a child one cannot support is a form of entrapment. A deceit. A fraud. A theft.

    Women need oppressing in reproduction since they use parasitism as a reproductive strategy.

    The west evolved faster because we supprssed our underclasses from reproducing.

    Women have used democracy to reinstitute parasitism as the primary means of reproductive strategy.

    The historical narrative is one of demonic males. But the equally obvious historical narrative is parasitic females.

    This is profound. It is quite the opposite of the anglo enlightenment argument that has failed under democracy.

    It is quite the opposite of the feminist narrative.

    The operational narrative is that man rose out of barbarism by controlling the reproduction of parasitic females through the institutions of family and property rights.

    And socialism(male) and feminism(female) is just another attempt to regress into dysgenic reoroducion.

    The conflict is not between classes but between eugenic and dysgenic reproduction.

    Marx was not only wrong, he was a justificationary fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 03:38:00 UTC

  • If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.***

    ie: parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:28:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1 As mother, you do not have the moral justification

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1

    As mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons.

    Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic. And I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing.

    As for Parasitism: a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). You acted to create the child. It is the reason that you exist.

    As for taboos: the purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible.

    But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with killing. I argue that we need to do a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    But then, that’s feminism’s deceit at play: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring.

    All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others.

    **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT: SPEAK TRUTH.

    I am not making such a grand argument really. There is nothing of moral equivalency about it. Instead, it’s a very simple, but profoundly important argument: “BE TRUTHFUL”.

    If moral discussions appear complicated, or paradoxical, then falsehoods are contained in the propositions.

    Just as mothers must discipline children, men must discipline men. Violence occurs when the accumulated incentives are insufficient to discipline men. Violence also occurs when incentives outweight costs. (Crimea/Donbas, Kuwait, Hungary).

    But deception, is just deception, and makes rational resolution of differences impossible. That is why this debate is interesting. It is very simple. It is not a moral question. It is not a question between mother and child. It is a question of what we will tolerate from one another while still maintaining cooperation.Political order being our most complex form of cooperation.

    Feminism, like its male counterpart socialism, is an elaborate verbal game of loading and framing in order to use guilt to obscure and justify parasitism. And democracy is merely a slow road to socialism: parasitism.

    S THE ONLY MORAL GOOD IS TRUTHFUL, FULLY INFORMED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE IN THE ABSENCE OF PARASITISM

    The only common good is not a singular, monopoly optimum, but voluntary exchange (cooperation) in the absence of parasitism(non-cooperation) for the purpose of constructing commons.

    All majority-rule mandates are lost opportunities for voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation. ie: theft.

    Curt

    PS: You should read these posts as follow-up.

    1) MURDERING THE UNBORN — PART II

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259110292264

    2) HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH (PART III)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259239887264

    3) WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. (PRELUDE)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153255381997264

    (Note: Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:25:00 UTC

  • ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN

    ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER.

    If you take action to end a life, regardless of what stage, you end a life. That is all there is to it. There isn’t anything else do debate. The debate is only whether we hold people accountable for ending lives.

    I have no problem with murder. I just call it murder. Whether we punish murderers or not is a choice. But the choice to punish murderers has no factual impact on whether one committed an action to end a life, regardless of whether it’s an embryonic life, or a centenarian in a coma on life support. If you act, you change state, and if you change state by your actions, you are the cause of the consequences.

    I am OK with murder. I am ok with abortion-murder. I am ok with all murder really. We don’t do enough murdering as far as I can tell. Murder is underrated. Murder often produces goods. Murder quite often can produce exceptional goods. I can think of lots of good that can be done with murder.

    But that’s different from feminist deceit. Feminist deceit is just a means of stealing. Because that’s the central proposition of feminism, just as the central proposition of socialism, and the central proposition of postmodernism: theft.

    So, abortion is murder. You want to murder your fetus so that you aren’t responsible for paying for it in time, care, money and opportunity. I want to murder adults so that I don’t have to pay for them. I probably want to murder you so that I don’t have do pay for you. The world would probably be better if all parasites were murdered. So it’s murder. And let’s not lie and say it isn’t murder. It’s just murder. It’s plain and simple. Murder.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 16:22:00 UTC

  • THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom) —“T

    THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION

    (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)

    —“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner

    Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)

    As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    (Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    (But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    (Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 05:47:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY –“Morals — all correct moral l

    PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY

    –“Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level. The basis of all morality is duty.”– Heinlein

    Terribly imprecise and inadequate use of antique religio-moral language to refer to a purely economic (human) behavior.

    It is not true that morals derive from the instinct to survive, but from the instinct to cooperate, and to gain advantage in consumption through cooperation. It is true that we cannot consider the intertemporally self-genocidal, fratricidal and suicidal to be moral – because that is irrational. But that tells us nothing about the reasons for, and causes of, our moral intuitions.

    Our emotional intuitions tell us to acquire if not to expense, and to avoid prevent even if it is so.

    Our moral intuitions encourage us to cooperate out of self-interest, and to avoid and punish parasitism out of self-interest.

    This is because cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition. And because parasitism eliminates the value of cooperation.

    So, duty, while admirable (and the central proposition of germanic civilization), is correctly stated as the payment of all possible fees into the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Germanic ‘duty’ refers to the total suppression of free riding on the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Men pay a disproportionate percentage of these costs. In no small part, because women largely engage in just the opposite. As has been demonstrated by their voting pattern in all democratic countries.

    Propertarianism solves all questions of human action.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 05:37:00 UTC

  • EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS (worth repeating) Before I ha

    EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS

    (worth repeating)

    Before I had my personal moral reformation, and rejection of what I learned in university, I considered going into the private espionage business. (Such business does exist, and is totally above board when it is used to uncover illegal activity. You can hire security firms that have specialized groups that perform the work legally.)

    After working with the Koenigs, the Golubs and the Seminoffs (all descendants of Russian jews) and filing racketeering charges against the Koenigs, turning the Golobs in to the justice department for wire fraud, and turning Seminoff in for Tax Evasion and Fraud, it seemed like I was making a career out of stumbling into illegal financial activity, and I might as well take the moral high ground.

    Instead, I did the opposite, which was to search for only moral people to work with, and avoid the scumbags entirely. It was a good personal decision. But the awareness of how damned evil some people were never left me. And I always felt that my moral business partners were naive idiots that I had to make sure didn’t hurt themselves or me. (I failed by the way.)

    I used to tell these stories to everyone. I don’t anymore. I prefer to focus on the positives. But there is a whole world of shitty people out there using every financial and legal scam in the book to hook crook and steal from others. And you would be surprised that that list includes some of the most prestigious legal firms in america with whom I have sat on boards, and listened to explicit instructions on how to get away with theft.

    My ancestors were puritans and I suspect that it’s a genetic bias. But I have come to detest the institutionalization of immorality imposed on my people during the 20th century.

    And so I am fighting back at grand scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING. (wort

    MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING.

    (worth repeating)

    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)

    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.

    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 02:18:00 UTC

  • For Carolynn Smith —““He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his deal

    For Carolynn Smith

    —““He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”― Immanuel Kant

    In Propertarian terms:

    Any man who is cruel to animals is a risk to the rest of us. Child molesters, animal abusers, and serial killers are driven by the same motives. It is not that animals can possess rights. It is that we must posses standing in court by which to prosecute individuals who are a threat to us, to others, and to the pets in our charge that we cherish. Animals are wondrous pets. All of them. They are extensions of our family.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-05 00:41:00 UTC