Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

    (important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)

    [Y]our Charter.  The demands of your revolution :

    1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)

    2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.

    3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)

    4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.

    5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.

    [W]e succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.

    The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.

    But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.

    Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).

    This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.

    [T]he monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.

    So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.

    There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.

    Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.

    The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.

  • A Hierarchy of Argumentative Structures

    (useful) (learning propertarianism)

    [T]he next ten arguments you make, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

    4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

    5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

    9) TRUTHFUL: categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

    10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

    Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[capitalismv3.com 2011]

  • A Hierarchy of Argumentative Structures

    (useful) (learning propertarianism)

    [T]he next ten arguments you make, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

    4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

    5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

    9) TRUTHFUL: categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

    10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

    Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[capitalismv3.com 2011]

  • A Hierarchy of Argumentative Truth

    (very useful) (learning propertarianism) [S]o, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

    1) MEANING (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) PREFERENCE ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) ACTIONABILITY ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) MORALITY ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) RATIONALITY ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) DECIDEABILITY ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) TRUTH ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) TAUTOLOGY ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.

  • A Hierarchy of Argumentative Truth

    (very useful) (learning propertarianism) [S]o, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

    1) MEANING (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) PREFERENCE ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) ACTIONABILITY ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) MORALITY ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) RATIONALITY ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) DECIDEABILITY ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) TRUTH ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) TAUTOLOGY ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.

  • Racism, Loading and Framing

    [G]ad,
    I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.

    The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.

    Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism

    Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.

    Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.

    SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )

    FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.

  • Racism, Loading and Framing

    [G]ad,
    I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.

    The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.

    Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism

    Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.

    Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.

    SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )

    FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.

  • The Media as Drug Dealer

    [I]t doesn’t make financial sense to operate a newspaper. The FT generates 35M of profit per year on over 500M in revenues. That’s what, 7%? The reason to own a newspaper is influence: gossip. Now the financial times is, like the Journal, a financial rather than political newspaper. So by definition it’s an empirical and heroic medium rather than one of complaining, for the purpose of rallying shaming, and power accumulation.

    I went through five daily issues of Canada’s main newspaper a few years ago, circling correspondent articles (what I consider truthful) and you could find about three small articles a day. The rest were entertainment, created by appealing to the anglosphere’s erroneous sense of moral superiority. In other words, the newspaper business sells advertising to marketers, and then consumers buy signaling: a form of conspicuous consumption, that carries signals. And quite the opposite of what we expected: people are not able to insulate themselves from the most influential drug after sex: signals of moral fitness. If we look at the evolutionary reasons why this all works, it’s obvious: moral fitness makes us generous, and moral violation makes us punish. But we should look at the non-financial media as what they are: drug dealers. They’re causing suicide through addiction.

  • The Media as Drug Dealer

    [I]t doesn’t make financial sense to operate a newspaper. The FT generates 35M of profit per year on over 500M in revenues. That’s what, 7%? The reason to own a newspaper is influence: gossip. Now the financial times is, like the Journal, a financial rather than political newspaper. So by definition it’s an empirical and heroic medium rather than one of complaining, for the purpose of rallying shaming, and power accumulation.

    I went through five daily issues of Canada’s main newspaper a few years ago, circling correspondent articles (what I consider truthful) and you could find about three small articles a day. The rest were entertainment, created by appealing to the anglosphere’s erroneous sense of moral superiority. In other words, the newspaper business sells advertising to marketers, and then consumers buy signaling: a form of conspicuous consumption, that carries signals. And quite the opposite of what we expected: people are not able to insulate themselves from the most influential drug after sex: signals of moral fitness. If we look at the evolutionary reasons why this all works, it’s obvious: moral fitness makes us generous, and moral violation makes us punish. But we should look at the non-financial media as what they are: drug dealers. They’re causing suicide through addiction.

  • Conceptual Laundry: Twitter.

    Philosophy, to be true, must be critical. There are no answers in philosophy itself. It’s conceptual laundry detergent. Philosophy consists either of telling us how to speak truthfully, or it is just a means of loading, framing and overloading The greatest lies in history have been produced philosophically: monotheism, marxism, freudianism, postmodernism. Philosophy has done more harm that good. That’s because it’s an exceptional vehicle for deception by suggestion. Philosophy can be performed wishfully, morally, rationally, historically, and scientifically. Only the last has any value. Does your government improve cooperation and exchange, or create conflict and takings? That’s an easy question to answer. But why must we persist in a submissive mythos of federation, truth, trust and love, instead of just truth, trust and love? The Church then chartered nobility with love and trust – and left them to war and justice (production). They federated our tribes The Church manufactured idealism, and used Love to break kin and tribal biases, extending trust, and creating economic velocity. Aristocracy must rule by the formal logic of cooperation: non parasitism expressed as property. Else be ruled by worse. That is my answer to yesterday’s question about the failure of South Africa and the genocide conducted against its farmers. Rule of law, and production of commons are two different things. Democracy is a catastrophe because it merges law and commons. Failing to parent the young, and failing to parent less advanced polities differ only in scale. Aristocracy must parent. Take nothing not paid for. Master a craft. Speak the truth. Safeguard the weak. Mete justice. Improve commons. Show love. Add beauty. Cultures vary in their needs for commons. But rule of law, common law, property rights are objectively universal for all men. Rule of Law and Contractually Constructed Commons are different things. Rulers can adjudicate while leaving commons to locals. Rule and Colonization are two different things. Rule by rule of law and strict property rights is objectively universally moral. Religions evolved for the poor. Philosophy for the middle. And Law for the Ruling classes. The three metodologies reflect perceived control. Islam is a religion of submission, Christianity less so. But western Aristocracy is a cult of non-submission to man, government, or god. I don’t like analogies. They’re used to lie. Myths are analogies. But at least Christianity’s myths teach us love, truthfulness and beauty. The obvious failure of progressivism is that it is constructed entirely of lies. It isn’t philosophy then. It’s just lying. Cultures are not equal. They suppress parasitism more or less, display corruption more or less, and speak the truth more or less.