Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Q&A: “CURT: HOW ARE WE NOT WEALTHIER THAN CAVE MEN?” —“we are not wealthier th

    Q&A: “CURT: HOW ARE WE NOT WEALTHIER THAN CAVE MEN?”

    —“we are not wealthier than cave men, we have made all goods and services infinitely cheaper through cooperation in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.”—

    —“I obviously understand how a division of labor leads to higher productivity and more opportunities experienced by people, but I would think that’d still make each of us wealthier than cavemen.”—

    Rhetorical device to draw attention to the fact that our only existential wealth is time. And through cooperation we have radically increased the purchasing power of time, by radically increasing our productivity through a division of knowledge and labor.

    This statement illustrates better than any other that I have found, that we cannot increase the inventory of time (much), but we can dramatically increase the caloric transformation of the universe for our benefit by working in complex cooperative arrangements.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 16:18:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“Curt, what are commons in the framework of propertarianism? How are the

    Q&A: —“Curt, what are commons in the framework of propertarianism? How are they constructed, and what advantages do they confer?”—

    Property: that which I bear costs to obtain without imposing cost upon that which others have born costs to obtain.

    Shareholder Property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is articulated, and non-transferrable without group permission.

    Common property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is weakly articulated and is transferrable through reproduction to one’s offspring and mates.

    Property en toto: referring to that which people demonstrate acting to obtain without imposing costs upon that which others have acted to obtain, and for which they demonstrate retaliation for imposition of costs upon. This includes but is not limited to: life, kin, mates, physical, normative, traditional, and institutional assets.

    Positive/Negative Costs: While some physical assets are purchased through direct payment (positive costs), some assets are purchased through indirect payment that we call ‘restraint’ or ‘deprivation’ or ‘forgone opportunity for consumption’ (negative costs).

    Homesteading of Opportunities produced by the commons is permissible (competition), but transfer of assets already homesteaded requires productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the property en toto of others by externality.

    THE LOGICAL INVERSION

    As people congregate and develop normative institutions they are able to develop increasingly dense common property which in turn produces lower cost opportunities.

    “we are not wealthier than cave men, we have made all goods and services infinitely cheaper through cooperation in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.”

    Hence collections of people create discounts on opportunities (time) which are then open to identification (experimentation) and homesteading (transformation), into private property, which may then be consumed, inventoried, or invested in the commons.

    Getting one’s head around the fact that we improve rates of everything in time, and that we cannot know truth only falsehoods, and that we pay for commons both directly via payment or indirectly by forgone opportunities is a sort of inversion of the way we look at history. So it may seem counter intuitive at first until we grasp that time is our only existential asset and that the division of labor eliminates switching costs in exchange for increased productivity. And that the principle value of population density is the cheapness with which opportunities are constructed. And that the principle value of property rights is to reduce transaction costs in the process of production that we call cooperation in a division of labor.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 12:54:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLES? —Curt, can you give me some examples of immoral behaviors that would

    EXAMPLES?

    —Curt, can you give me some examples of immoral behaviors that would be permitted under rothbardianism that would be suppressed under propertarianism?—

    Great question.

    The classical example is blackmail – which while voluntary (a) is not productive, (b) incentivizes retaliation, and (c) constitutes a conspiracy against others or the commons.

    In order for cooperation to be rational it must consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property en toto, free of imposition of costs against property en toto by externality. Blackmail is objectively immoral (a disincentive to cooperation, and a privatization – theft – of the commons of ‘cooperation’). We don’t tend to think of the stock of trust as an asset but it is one of our most influential in the production of economic velocity and therefore prosperity.

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 07:14:00 UTC

  • DIVORCED TODAY Apparently I am now divorced from my marriage of convenience and

    DIVORCED TODAY

    Apparently I am now divorced from my marriage of convenience and am again a free agent.

    Cost in America? 5 million.

    Cost in Ukraine? 5 hundred.

    And you wonder why I hate American government?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 04:27:00 UTC

  • What are your thoughts on this (when you have time)?

    What are your thoughts on this (when you have time)?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-30 20:47:00 UTC

  • “Man must make money. Woman must be beautiful.”– Ukrainian proverb

    —“Man must make money. Woman must be beautiful.”– Ukrainian proverb.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-30 15:59:00 UTC

  • POWER VS USABILITY R (statistics ) and UNIX are extremely POWERFUL. —and— Wu

    POWER VS USABILITY

    R (statistics ) and UNIX are extremely POWERFUL.

    —and—

    Wunderlist and iOS are extremely USABLE.

    There is always a tradeoff between usability and power.

    My observation over time is that people prefer to use tools that match the complexity then share the work products rather than general purpose tools.

    If you could start instances of word with different capabilities all of which produce word documents then I suspect people would prefer that too to one that includes all the features available to them.

    In other words, the user interface should reflect the type of document you write.

    I use TextEdit, TextWrangler, Word, Evernote, Scrivener, and finally WordPress as a Wordprocessor. And I understand that the future looks more like WordPress and less like the others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-30 08:17:00 UTC

  • THE FINAL WORD ON NAP/ISV, NAP/DP (the end of the libertine as useful idiot) Rot

    THE FINAL WORD ON NAP/ISV, NAP/DP

    (the end of the libertine as useful idiot)

    Rothbardianism is an attempt to restore eastern european financial predation on the middle, working and lower classes.

    The NAP is, like most Cosmopolitan arguments – whether socialist, libertine, or neo-conservative – is a half truth (informationally incomplete) intentionally designed to require you to substitute your own information thus appealing to our ‘pathological altruism’. So the purpose is to get us to invest or risk, so that we can lose our investment yet blame ourselves.

    The Logic of the Half Truth isn’t difficult. One must have something to aggress against. So the statement NAP is a half truth.

    The ongoing debate in cosmopolitan libertinism is reducible to defining the scope of property that we insure one another from, and which we agree to retaliate for, aggression against.

    The test is Blackmail. Blackmail constitutes a voluntary exchange, but it incentivizes retaliation. This is an empirical statement (an is) not theoretical statement (should).

    The purpose of property rights (mutual insurance of each other’s property) is to incentivize cooperation and disincentivize retaliation in furtherance of productivity.

    So rothbard proposes NAP/IVP or “ghetto” property rights. Meaning “if I can get away with a deal then it was moral”, whereas “aristocratic” NAP/Demonstrated Property or western property rights by contrast “if one will not retaliate against me for this action then it was moral”.

    This is why westerners created a high trust polity where none did, and why the jews were eventually outcast (or murdered) wherever they settled.

    (This is also the source of the ‘lie’ of Crusoe’s island which is little more than an idealized ghetto: the sea functioning as the walls of the ghetto. Yet man evolved without such walls – and having to build a common defense to erect them, not by the gift of natural walls provided by the sea, or gift of unnatural walls provided by the aristocracy who constructed the cities.)

    All libertinism, all rothbardianism, is an insidious lie as great as marxism, neo conservatism, christianity, judaism, islam, and all other great lies. The purpose of this lie is to destroy our ability to construct commons, including our most important commons: trust and truth telling.

    Libertinism was designed to morally license lying and cheating. To restore the method by which the ghetto preyed upon the lower classes and to apply it to those same individuals. And well intentioned ‘useful idiots’ bought into Rothbardianism just as happily as well intentioned idiots bought into marxism-socialism-neo-puritanism-postmodernism and neo-conservatism.

    We all criticize one another without grasping that we have all been fooled. All baited. All deceived. Just as we were by christianity.

    The only source of liberty is our reciprocal warranty under pain of death that we will use violence to prevent the imposition of costs upon one another’s property, and will retaliate against the imposition of costs on one another’s property, regardless of cost.

    Roads are not the problem that we must solve. The problem is the creation of property rights in sufficient scope that we eliminate demand for the state as a preventer of theft, a prosecutor of theft, and an insurer against theft by all means possible.

    Rothbard is no better than boaz, marx, freud, keynes, or Strauss. He was just another cosmopolitan liar creating a great deceit with which to undermine our high trust civilization – the only high trust civilization ever to exist.

    There is no shame in having been fooled and playing the part of a useful idiot.

    But there is shame in seeking to defend a great lie in order to avoid admitting that one has been duped into playing the part of a useful idiot.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-30 04:39:00 UTC

  • Heroism requires contribution to the commons. But selfishness evident in Hollywo

    Heroism requires contribution to the commons.

    But selfishness evident in Hollywood scripts from the matrix to the remake of war if the worlds seeks to replace contribution to the commons (heroism) with cowardice, running away, hiding, evading, letting others die for you, and somehow attempting to cast this selfishness as heroic.

    It is why their movies don’t sell without spectacle.

    Because that are immoral.

    The people who lie.

    Expertise in lying is a genetic advantage v

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-29 17:59:00 UTC

  • On libertarian perma-bears. This is another instance of social discontent. A rea

    On libertarian perma-bears.

    This is another instance of social discontent. A reaction to rejection.

    I am an advocate of the Austrian business cycle and the accumulated fragility and damage from misallocation of all forms of capital in order to construct artificial consumption through artificial employment.This is a logical necessity. And is finally empirically obvious.

    But bearism is merely a signal that one is rejecting the current order. And little else.

    Contrarianism is an excellent strategy but one must ask why one evolved into a contrarian.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-29 16:37:00 UTC