Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism ha

    UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES

    @Eli

    I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.

    I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.

    I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.

    This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:45:00 UTC

  • THE TIME FOR COOPERATION (EQUALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY) IS PAST by Eli Harman Peterso

    THE TIME FOR COOPERATION (EQUALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY) IS PAST

    by Eli Harman

    Peterson is trying, Doolittle is trying, every conservative and libertarian has BEEN trying, for the last 50 years, to leave the door open to cooperation, coexistence, and compromise with the left. When they finally and inevitably fail to secure a good faith acceptance for their offer, we will be there, to do the other things. But the offer is necessary, because the inevitable refusal and betrayal are necessary, in order to legitimize what must be done. It will not be said that we didn’t give them enough chances to save themselves. We will give them too many. We already have.

    ( Curt Doolittle: Yes. The time for hope is past. My intentions are to provide a compromise: full reciprocity, thereby treating ‘the others’ (those who lack agency) as foreigners, with whom we settle differences by market cooperation. However, by advocating ‘market fascism’, and aristocratic rule, I’m advocating taking a parental (paternal) responsibility for the ‘others’, in the kindest sense, a domestication of them for profit, out of self-defense, in the middle of the spectrum, and their extermination at the end of the spectrum. My strategy is to simply state this truthfully. And prepare for war. And choose any of the three options that will be available to us in a state of war. I do not fear them. And there are consequences to exterminating them – although I am not sure all are bad. But to domesticate them for profit as we have done for millennia is a position I have a hard time arguing with. Market slavery is still slavery.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:23:00 UTC

  • The Distillation of Western Civilization

    THE DISTILLATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION If you would be sovereign, you must fight. If you would be sovereign and win, you must equally confederate. If you would be sovereign and confederate, you must equally compromise. If you would be sovereign and equally compromise, you must equally forgo opportunities for gain at another’s loss. If you would be sovereign and equally forgo equal opportunities to gain at another’s loss, your actions are limited to those that are productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary, and limited to productive externalities. If you limit your actions to those, then the ONLY possible rule is rule by Common, judge-discovered, Natural Law of Non Imposition of Costs, and therefore, voluntary markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of dispute resolution, production of institutions, productions of monuments, production of war, productions of generations, This is Western Civilization: the choice of Sovereignty once made produces all that we have done. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. If you would be Sovereign, and reap the benefits of Sovereignty, you must fight – fight to deny others all possible alternatives. If you will not fight you cannot be sovereign. You may beg the Sovereigns for commercial liberty, or physical freedom, or charity, in exchange for compensation. But you may never be in fact sovereign. by William Butchman, Eli Harman, and Curt Doolittle

  • The Distillation of Western Civilization

    THE DISTILLATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION If you would be sovereign, you must fight. If you would be sovereign and win, you must equally confederate. If you would be sovereign and confederate, you must equally compromise. If you would be sovereign and equally compromise, you must equally forgo opportunities for gain at another’s loss. If you would be sovereign and equally forgo equal opportunities to gain at another’s loss, your actions are limited to those that are productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary, and limited to productive externalities. If you limit your actions to those, then the ONLY possible rule is rule by Common, judge-discovered, Natural Law of Non Imposition of Costs, and therefore, voluntary markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of dispute resolution, production of institutions, productions of monuments, production of war, productions of generations, This is Western Civilization: the choice of Sovereignty once made produces all that we have done. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. If you would be Sovereign, and reap the benefits of Sovereignty, you must fight – fight to deny others all possible alternatives. If you will not fight you cannot be sovereign. You may beg the Sovereigns for commercial liberty, or physical freedom, or charity, in exchange for compensation. But you may never be in fact sovereign. by William Butchman, Eli Harman, and Curt Doolittle

  • Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration

    Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?

  • Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration

    Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?

  • Sovereignty vs Servility

    SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with. But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate. This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them. We have had our rights for thousands of years. It took those thousands of years to preserve them. It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution. And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one. So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?

  • Sovereignty vs Servility

    SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with. But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate. This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them. We have had our rights for thousands of years. It took those thousands of years to preserve them. It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution. And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one. So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?

  • Terror, Progress, and Islam

    Terror requires the deliberate targeting of non-combatants as a means of altering policy. Sovereignty requires one’s government control non-state actors. Democracy requires one’s people control one’s government such that it controls non-state actors, such that it does not break the westphalian peace, nor the postwar peace. Justice visited upon the muslims to contain them just as the west tried to contain the communists in the twentieth century and the Islamic empires, for it’s thousand years of warfare against the west. And so apparently we must unify china, india, russia, and america to contain islam until it respects the peaces of westphalia (containing non state actors), and of the postwar consensus (maintian borders, develop human rights, and develop consumer economies). No people yet has transformed from the medieval to the modern without a reformation, and some sort of civil war. Islam is the only backward civilization remaining. The problem it faces, and south america faces, is that the demographics throughout the muslim world make a rational secular state nearly impossible without the promise of ever-expanding growth under fiat money capitalism.

  • Terror, Progress, and Islam

    Terror requires the deliberate targeting of non-combatants as a means of altering policy. Sovereignty requires one’s government control non-state actors. Democracy requires one’s people control one’s government such that it controls non-state actors, such that it does not break the westphalian peace, nor the postwar peace. Justice visited upon the muslims to contain them just as the west tried to contain the communists in the twentieth century and the Islamic empires, for it’s thousand years of warfare against the west. And so apparently we must unify china, india, russia, and america to contain islam until it respects the peaces of westphalia (containing non state actors), and of the postwar consensus (maintian borders, develop human rights, and develop consumer economies). No people yet has transformed from the medieval to the modern without a reformation, and some sort of civil war. Islam is the only backward civilization remaining. The problem it faces, and south america faces, is that the demographics throughout the muslim world make a rational secular state nearly impossible without the promise of ever-expanding growth under fiat money capitalism.