Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • What evidence do you have that the state cannot end digital shares in digital ne

    What evidence do you have that the state cannot end digital shares in digital networks?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 12:30:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180822695988121600

    Reply addressees: @NickmhTw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180822192495321088

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nickTw7m47amfe

    @curtdoolittle The state needs to demonstrate that anything it economically touches isn’t poison. Untill that happens? Btc will be the standard by which all others will be measured.
    It can generate as much crypto as it likes. It will “suck-in” the naive. But that’s all.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180822192495321088

  • He is attempting to destroy the evolution of the presidency into PRIESTHOOD that

    He is attempting to destroy the evolution of the presidency into PRIESTHOOD that you, many like you, and all of the left desire.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 12:26:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180821564889210882

    Reply addressees: @PilkingtonCM @whignewtons

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180600623189725192

    IN REPLY TO:

    @PilkingtonCM

    @whignewtons I’m a life-long Republican but cannot continue to support or defend Trump’s lack of Presidential demeanor. His narcissism will have long lasting damage to the image of the Republican Party. I’m even considering changing my registration to Independent while he is in office.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180600623189725192

  • So please stop being a useful idiot. I use Sovereigntarian, or rule of law of re

    So please stop being a useful idiot. I use Sovereigntarian, or rule of law of reciprocity, or rule of law monarchy, or classical liberal. Libertarian in the hayekian sense means Classical Liberalism. Libertarianism in the Rothbardian sense just means “useful idiot”.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 12:05:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180816295861858304

    Reply addressees: @psionin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180815686504980480

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @psionin Libertarianism is just demand for a commune of private rather than common property at best, or an excuse to fool high trust european peoples into hosting parasitic peoples who specialize in profit from baiting into moral hazard, under the pretense of doing no harm.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180815686504980480

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @psionin Libertarianism is just demand for a commune of private rather than common property at best, or an excuse to fool high trust european peoples into hosting parasitic peoples who specialize in profit from baiting into moral hazard, under the pretense of doing no harm.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180815686504980480

  • So Rothbardians destroyed the term liberty as the left destroyed the term libera

    So Rothbardians destroyed the term liberty as the left destroyed the term liberal. Either we have a militia in which every man holding the franchise defends rule of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, and produces commons necessary for survival of the polity – or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180814709928448000

    Reply addressees: @psionin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180814232344055808

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @psionin 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.

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

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @psionin 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.

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

  • Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t unde

    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’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:55:59 UTC

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

    Reply addressees: @psionin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180761365444792320

    IN REPLY TO:

    @psionin

    @curtdoolittle For me the last part best manifests itself within the ideas of libertarianism.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180761365444792320

  • ANTI-STATISM. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON”T THINK SO. Hmmm … This is an angle I hav

    ANTI-STATISM. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON”T THINK SO.

    Hmmm … This is an angle I haven’t worked on enough, which is disambiguating the state (assets and bureaucracy), government (leadership), authority (rule of law and market polity vs authority and directed polity). Because it’s not whether we have a state or government or authority but whether we have rule of law or arbitrary rule (Rule by discretion). Plato’s vision and Sparta’s vision were different only in details. Fundamentally, in both, the majority ‘unwashed’ needed rule. The church the same. The feudal fiefs the same (true). In the monarchies the people only needed order because the middle class had begun to evolve and commerce creates order by incentives thereby eliminating the need for intervention by rulers. The enlightenment sought a majority middle class where all of us were governed by incentives in the market. The industrial revolution tried to reverse it, under Marx putting labor in position of authority rather than the market, and the vast increase in the underclasses continued that expansion.

    So when we say we are anti-state, or anti-governmnet this isn’t really true. it’s that we need a state and need a government, sufficient to preserve the largest middle class (market participants) possible, with the optimum common possible.

    And the only way to do that is rule of law and eugenics. And eugenics requires either embodiment in law, or the unfettered consequences of the market. So embodiment in the law is preferable solution because it is a moral solution that trades non-reproduction, for subsidy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 07:23:00 UTC

  • As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or

    As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or not, and the debate as one of cost not existence. The result of which was that being armed with practice one or twice a year was enough – if affordable. It was never a question of our bearing arms.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 19:23:00 UTC

  • My reading of Schmitt. (a) democratic polities are slow and error prone. (duh) (

    My reading of Schmitt.

    (a) democratic polities are slow and error prone. (duh)

    (b) there are times where exception is necessary, by exercise of an authority (dictator) (duh)

    (c) sometimes governments need to be reorganized (not really, just people replaced or functions added or subtracted)

    (d) All polities are in competition against others to institute an order more favorable than the one extant, and this process is why we have states. (duh)

    (e) Germans moralize about right and good and he’s another victim of it. Government is a competitive necessity not a preference, there is only one order we know of that is durable, so use it and stop trying to be creative.

    Ergo: The romans were right that a dynamic government is necessary, that can switch between dictatorial during periods of necessity, and republican during regularities, and semi -democratic in times of prosperity.

    The british solved this by instead dividing powers. So did the americans, although in practice the president is only dictator over some aspects of war.

    For reasons hoppe has illustrated monarchies are superior to dictatorships precisely because there is no competition for the top position, and the monarchy can appoint dictators(generals) and override the parliament (businessmen) as needed.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 20:48:00 UTC

  • Economics of Consumption Is by Definition Leftist

    [S]overeignty demands Reciprocity, where demand for Reciprocity includes all demonstrated interests, whether bodily, family, physical, normative, traditional, informational, or the civic and political institutions that defend them. To reinforce the intuition that productivity isn’t observable with a bit more edge: westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism. So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods, not the production of commons: truth, honesty, integrity, contract, quality, civility, responsibility – which is what makes western civilization unique. We don’t live in a world where there is a problem of consumption – we have just enabled the world to stampede on a path to hyper-consumption – even of the commons we alone can make, which made their hyper-consumption possible.

  • Economics of Consumption Is by Definition Leftist

    [S]overeignty demands Reciprocity, where demand for Reciprocity includes all demonstrated interests, whether bodily, family, physical, normative, traditional, informational, or the civic and political institutions that defend them. To reinforce the intuition that productivity isn’t observable with a bit more edge: westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism. So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods, not the production of commons: truth, honesty, integrity, contract, quality, civility, responsibility – which is what makes western civilization unique. We don’t live in a world where there is a problem of consumption – we have just enabled the world to stampede on a path to hyper-consumption – even of the commons we alone can make, which made their hyper-consumption possible.