Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

    [W]e can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
    1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequence, eliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

    3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.

    4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability.

    6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.


      The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.


      The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.


      But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

      Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

      Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.


      The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

      Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.


  • Public Economics of Marriage

    [M]arriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property. From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:

    1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
    2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
    3. A family can engage in (re)production.
    4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
    5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
    6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
    7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
    8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
    9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
    10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
    11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
    12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
    13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
    14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
    15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
    16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
    17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
    18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).

    Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off. QED.

  • Public Economics of Marriage

    [M]arriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property. From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:

    1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
    2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
    3. A family can engage in (re)production.
    4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
    5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
    6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
    7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
    8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
    9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
    10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
    11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
    12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
    13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
    14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
    15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
    16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
    17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
    18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).

    Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off. QED.

  • WHY? BECAUSE AS AN ASPIE I HATE CONFLICT. So it’s only natural that I would seek

    WHY? BECAUSE AS AN ASPIE I HATE CONFLICT.

    So it’s only natural that I would seek a solution predicated on productive, fully informed voluntary exchange, free of externality – so that no conflict is possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 12:11:00 UTC

  • ASIANS GET LONGER LIFE SPANS IN EXCHANGE FOR LOWER TESTOSTERONE? —“Asians have

    ASIANS GET LONGER LIFE SPANS IN EXCHANGE FOR LOWER TESTOSTERONE?

    —“Asians have less developed genitalia and the effect seems to be sustained. A meta-analysis made in May 2007 found the smallest average penis size, in a comparison amongst many areas worldwide, in Korea. Biologically, this could mean a lower testosterone level in men, a weaker libido, compensated by a higher immune stability (testosterone decreases immunity) and a larger lifespan. In the end, the Japanese people have the highest life expectancy on the planet. The result seems to be this: the Mongoloid race is the most common in the planet.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 10:23:00 UTC

  • Have you come across the work of Roger Devlin, who wrote the essay “Sexual Utopi

    Have you come across the work of Roger Devlin, who wrote the essay “Sexual Utopia in Power”?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 10:19:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (worth repeating)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 09:28:00 UTC

  • OK. So basically the Iranian branch is much more aggressive than the pontic bran

    OK. So basically the Iranian branch is much more aggressive than the pontic branch of IE. We’re different races. Sorry. But man were the Iranains successful with all that aggression.

    BTW: Jews are Iranians.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 09:20:00 UTC

  • TEACHING HUMAN HISTORY IS EASY IF… Statists and Priests love to teach the hist

    TEACHING HUMAN HISTORY IS EASY IF…

    Statists and Priests love to teach the history of governments to give them legitimacy. But just as mathematics ought to be taught as a sequence of historical problems humans had to overcome, and we would understand it very easily, if we taught human history as the evolution of how our tribes evolved and expanded (now that we can teach it) we would find a very different world that was much easier to understand. And we would be a lot more concerned with peoples than corporate governments.

    Human history is not a very long period to cover. It’s a few thousand years. if you study land masses at geologic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study the solar system at galactic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study man at tribal time, it’s easy to understand. If you study technologies at technological time, it’s easy to understand. But if you teach these things all as a cacophony of unrelated events without a surrounding narrative it’s confusing as hell.

    Our myths make history seem long, mystical and confusing. But history of man’s evolution once we develop domestication is pretty simple. Before that it’s actually trivial, because it’s such a slow process.

    What humanists won’t like is that each wave of increasingly aggressive human wiped out the previous wave of less aggressive people.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 08:22:00 UTC

  • Don’t attack me. Ever. It’s a moral duty of aristocracy to limit argument to tru

    Don’t attack me. Ever.

    It’s a moral duty of aristocracy to limit argument to truthful discussion of the facts. If you attack me I will attack you back and return to the central argument, and I will not give up until you apologize, surrender, or leave.

    This is a costly means of conducting prosecution of liars and deceivers, but its an aristocratic tax we pay for preservation of the informational commons and our reputations as aristocracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 07:12:00 UTC