Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Hence why we need a “bible” of Truth (Natural Law) as a sacred scripture which n

    Hence why we need a “bible” of Truth (Natural Law) as a sacred scripture which no man-made act may contradict without license for his death.

    Truth is enough. It has always been enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 04:22:00 UTC

  • WE TRIED A CENTURY OF THINKING WE WERE SMARTER THAN OUR ANCESTORS – AND WE WERE

    WE TRIED A CENTURY OF THINKING WE WERE SMARTER THAN OUR ANCESTORS – AND WE WERE WRONG. THEY JUST DIDN”T WRITE THEIR ‘BIBLE’ DOWN.

    Western man created the commons as a sacred place. Other civilizations didn’t. That’s why we have beautiful commons. And the rest of the world treats the commons like either their living room or a dumpster.

    Do not assume you possess the knowledge of wisdom to counter traditions developed over thousands of years – and are the very cause of which you are able to live better than a dirt scratching peasant farmer picking fleas out of your hair.

    Western man evolved to worship nature as sacred, and he preserved this in the commons at very high cost, put through imitation of the effete classes who demanded it.

    We just tried a century of thinking we were smarter than our ancestors, and it turns out we weren’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 04:21:00 UTC

  • I should point out that as far as I know only the Japanese and the christian wes

    I should point out that as far as I know only the Japanese and the christian west have managed to create nature and commons as sacred places.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 04:14:00 UTC

  • MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMO

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.

    (trigger warning – some comments may be offensive)

    Some people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom.

    We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles

    We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

    As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

    I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

    Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

    Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

    Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

    To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so.

    This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons.

    Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons.

    It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple.

    Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 02:59:00 UTC

  • My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian econo

    My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian economics? https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=5f4fde62

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 22:00:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689568184530255876

  • IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US

    https://t.co/CYn1I4nXmXTHIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US.

    1 – Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of knowledge so that people can cooperate voluntarily under the optimum possible conditions. So as a movement, Austrian economics was a social science. In other words, they want to improve our information.

    2 – American (Chicago) economics seeks to identify rule of law, so that economics can be constructed as a formula under rule of law – eliminating discretionary toying with the economy, just as rule of law eliminates discretionary toying with the polity. In other words, they want to manipulate information as little as possible.

    3 – Saltwater (New York/California) economics seeks to identify the maximum disinformation that the government can insert into the economy with which to farm taxes, consume, and redistribute them, while preserving the incentive to keep working and risking capital (the hamster wheel), and to create sufficient knowledge of how to use disinformation that policy makers have full discretion.

    My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian economics?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 17:00:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=5f4fde62

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 17:00:00 UTC

  • (I must have gone native. Why? Because Americans exaggeratedly smiling in photos

    (I must have gone native. Why? Because Americans exaggeratedly smiling in photos look stupid to me now.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 11:27:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/why-an-ex-google-coder-makes-twice-as-much-freelancing

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 10:58:00 UTC

  • BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMON

    BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMONS.

    ( https://www.facebook.com/JoeySalads/videos/549083008591884/ )

    Had she picked a spot with limited privacy it would be one thing. Had she placed a blanket over her shoulder, that would be another. But they picked a spot where she was ADVERTISING and that’s quite different. It’s disregard for purity in the commons.

    We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

    As far as I know the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

    I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

    Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

    Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

    Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

    Sorry. Just how it is.

    PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THREE LOW TRUST GENE POOLS AND CULTURES IN THIS VIDEO. (PROLES)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:39:00 UTC