Theme: Sovereignty

  • September 5th, 2018 11:55 AM QUESTION : —“Hi Curt, if you don’t mind I’ve got

    September 5th, 2018 11:55 AM QUESTION:

    —“Hi Curt, if you don’t mind I’ve got a question on Sovereignty after reading your recent posts. Is Sovereignty only achieved through combing agency and reciprocity (I think I’ve seen you say this somewhere)? In which case, thinking about this in terms of individualism vs collectivism: -Groups of people who lack individual agency, but act as a collective can only ever beg for what they want (the herd). -Individuals who possess agency, but are unwilling to reciprocate with one another will be unable to achieve results at scale (lone wolves). -Therefore it’s not individualism vs collectivism; it’s agency AND reciprocity which when combined creates Sovereignty (the pack). Not sure if I’m stretching things here?”—- Andy Lunn

    ANSWER: Um. (a) very well structured argument, (b) correct conclusion. (c) nice work! A+

  • “If your goals are realized in the US, what (do you believe) would be the effect

    —“If your goals are realized in the US, what (do you believe) would be the effect on global hegemony? Is this speculation worthwhile?”—

    Yest the speculation is worthwhile because… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=290358384894392&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-04 10:29:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036924292125089792

  • “If your goals are realized in the US, what (do you believe) would be the effect

    —“If your goals are realized in the US, what (do you believe) would be the effect on global hegemony? Is this speculation worthwhile?”—

    Yest the speculation is worthwhile because external effect is part of the desired outcome.

    Lets assume one of four initial reactions:

    1 – External actors will become more confident in world affairs and more critical of US activity in the world.

    2 – external actors will support the activity of activists

    3 – external actors will seize opportunities for political expansion of influence.

    4 – external actors will seize opportunities for military expansion of influence.

    The degree of change in the world will be dependent upon those actions and the outcome of a revolutionary change:

    1 – acquiescence by the state and restoration of the powers of the states.

    2 – continuing declining low level civil warfare and related economic decline

    3 – a significant uprising that forces the military to enact martial law .

    4 – a significant uprising that forces the military to call troops from abroad to american soil.

    By and large the balance of powers will be restored,and either way america will return to a domestic rather than imperial power.

    Since everyone KNOWS this, particularly the upper levels of the military, the objective (my objective) is to make revolutionary outcome so certain that the government merely meets our demands for devolution to the states.

    It is pretty hard to object to my proposal other than out of job defense or collusion with the world’s (((globalist))) movement.

    We will own the blue water navy for a long time to come. We will lose and want to lose our responsibility for defending europe. That will force germany and russia to work together and end our conflict.

    China much like russia operates entirely for its domestic market. The usa operates for its globalist market. we just need to restore the balance of powers and then we can all focus on the only remaining enemy to the world: judaism-islam.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-04 06:29:00 UTC

  • Arguing for sovereignty & rule of law by reciprocity, with voluntary investment

    Arguing for sovereignty & rule of law by reciprocity, with voluntary investment in commons in a market for commons is the definition of a liberal. Unfortunately it’s been romantically stated as ‘individual liberties’ (permission from state), rather than sovereignty(pre-state).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-03 17:04:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036661338209222657

    Reply addressees: @FriedrichHayek @charlesmurray @howardowens @sapinker @bitcoin_bolsa

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033442610579308544


    IN REPLY TO:

    @FriedrichHayek

    @charlesmurray @howardowens @sapinker @bitcoin_bolsa Advocating for individual liberties is the _definition_ of a liberal. Hello.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033442610579308544

  • My answer to Was the Prince of Kiev really the forerunner of the Czar?

    My answer to Was the Prince of Kiev really the forerunner of the Czar? https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Prince-of-Kiev-really-the-forerunner-of-the-Czar/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-02 14:24:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036258693409632256

  • —“Q: Do you still favor a patchwork/multi-state system?”—

    —“Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multi-state system? I ask because many nrx associated people have started to lean towards absolutism.”— A Friend 1) A multi-state solution is ACHIEVABLE and will produce the desired outcomes. 2) I am not against absolutism it’s just that I don’t think it’s ACHIEVABLE 3) I advocate market fascism under the natural law of reciprocity and universal standing, with a judge of last resort (monarchy). 4) My opinion of ‘absolutists’ is that they are young, inexperienced, know little about running any organization of scale, and have even less knowledge of economics, so they go for the ‘big dumb simple’ tactic of absolutism.

  • —“Q: Do you still favor a patchwork/multi-state system?”—

    —“Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multi-state system? I ask because many nrx associated people have started to lean towards absolutism.”— A Friend 1) A multi-state solution is ACHIEVABLE and will produce the desired outcomes. 2) I am not against absolutism it’s just that I don’t think it’s ACHIEVABLE 3) I advocate market fascism under the natural law of reciprocity and universal standing, with a judge of last resort (monarchy). 4) My opinion of ‘absolutists’ is that they are young, inexperienced, know little about running any organization of scale, and have even less knowledge of economics, so they go for the ‘big dumb simple’ tactic of absolutism.

  • “Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multistate system? I ask because many nrx as

    —“Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multistate system? I ask because many nrx associated people have started to lean towards absolutism.”— A Friend

    1) A multistate solution is… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289384288325135&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-01 16:54:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035933897543041024

  • “Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multistate system? I ask because many nrx as

    —“Hi. Do you still favor a patchwork/multistate system? I ask because many nrx associated people have started to lean towards absolutism.”— A Friend

    1) A multistate solution is ACHIEVABLE and will produce the desired out comes.

    2) I am not against absolutism it’s just that I don’t think it’s ACHIEVABLE

    3) I advocate market fascism under the natural law of reciprocity and universal standing, with a judge of last resort (monarchy).

    4) My opinion of ‘absolutists’ is that they are young, inexperienced, know little about running any organization of scale, and have even less knowledge of economics, so they go for the ‘big dumb simple’ tactic of absolutism.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-01 12:54:00 UTC

  • The “Great Sort” continues. But we need our own government

    The “Great Sort” continues. But we need our own government.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-01 00:18:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035683312919044096

    Reply addressees: @JSp46305240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035673419235422208


    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/1035673419235422208