Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Bronze Age Europe – Where We Come From

    RECOMMENDED BRONZE AGE EUROPEAN HISTORY BOOKS

    1. JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    2. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
    3. The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd
    4. The Ancient Paths: Discovering the Lost Map of Celtic Europe

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Bronze Age Europe – Where We Come From

    RECOMMENDED BRONZE AGE EUROPEAN HISTORY BOOKS

    1. JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    2. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
    3. The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd
    4. The Ancient Paths: Discovering the Lost Map of Celtic Europe

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

    Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

    But then, how do I position it? —“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

    Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

    But then, how do I position it? —“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • ROMAN ON THE GENETIC USE OF PHILOSOPHY FOR STATUS SEEKING —If I understand cor

    ROMAN ON THE GENETIC USE OF PHILOSOPHY FOR STATUS SEEKING

    —If I understand correctly, your novelty is arguing that ideas are the structure and genes are man’s accommodation of them.

    You can say ideas (civilization) and genes inform each other. Perhaps the influence of ideas is underestimated. I don’t think it’s correct to say that one completely determines the other.

    Different civilizations (ideas, norms, institutions), create different reproductive incentives which lead to genetic differentiation of groups and, after a very long time (many millennia) may cause species to diverge.

    My hunch is that people’s genetics (moral intuition) will cause them to look at a philosophy and ask “how can I seek status within this system?”

    Genetics may determine what strategy individuals adopt: Express it. Protect it. Enforce it. Pretend to express it while cheating. Openly Flout it. Ignore it. Undermine it.— Roman Skaskiw

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 05:44:00 UTC

  • Mainstream Econ is the Study of Deception

    [M]ainstream Economics is not a practiced as a science of cooperation man but as a science of the deception of man. Not how to improve cooperation by reducing transaction costs and uncertainties but how to force consumption for the purpose of increasing employment. Of course the simplest method of  achieving the same result is to stop distorting the labor economy and directly redistribute liquidity to consumers such that employment makes less of an impact on the unemployed. That would also have the side effect of impoverishing the financial sector. Which is a good thing.

  • Mainstream Econ is the Study of Deception

    [M]ainstream Economics is not a practiced as a science of cooperation man but as a science of the deception of man. Not how to improve cooperation by reducing transaction costs and uncertainties but how to force consumption for the purpose of increasing employment. Of course the simplest method of  achieving the same result is to stop distorting the labor economy and directly redistribute liquidity to consumers such that employment makes less of an impact on the unemployed. That would also have the side effect of impoverishing the financial sector. Which is a good thing.

  • PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS (reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy) L

    PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS

    (reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy)

    Look at the past two years of posts by Eli Harman and Michael Philip, and look at the change in their sentence structure, length, and chain of causal relations. I’m very conscious of these things. So I see it. Johannes is a bit of a character, but at least offline, he is loosely stringing very long chains of causal explanation together and is perhaps best at constructing analysis by a chain of unloaded incentives. Look at the change in the confidence of argument of Haille Mariam-Lemar. Roman usually conducts his arguments elsewhere but he is the best at enfranchising the other side. Look at what we’ve seen from Jesse Bjorn and Mike Enoch in understanding and applying testimonial truth and propertarianism.

    It’s beautiful. But what is most beautiful, is the confidence that’s emerging. One of the things I wanted to do was increase the aggressiveness of the debate so that we spoke with confidence and conviction. I wanted to create a moral high ground that we weren’t afraid to argue without guilt, and with conviction. Truth is that moral high ground. And if we create a moral high ground to demand, we can stop complaining about the status quo, and work toward institutional change. We can demand institutional change. Revolt for institutional change.

    While it’s a phenomenal amount of work, I can see a future where we can train people to speak truthfully the same way we trained people to speak scientifically-morally instead of ratio-morally, and instead of religio-morally. Where we conduct exchanges rather than impose majority rule. Where we treat tribes like younger and older families rather than people to defeat or resist.

    But I’m still failing in some of my ambitions. I want to change the debate from criticism of multiculturalism and racism to advocacy of familialism and aristocracy. From genetic differences to differences in distributions. From equality and inequality to aristocratic success and failure. From corporate nation-states to private tribal families. From ratio-moral argument to scientific-truthful argument. Wherein each of us helping parent our tribes into a positive future for mankind. Each of us working to suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit and outright lying. Each of us building not just the truthful society, but a truthful mankind.

    And with that we future we create the aristocracy of everybody we intuit that is possible, dream that is possible, but can only be achieved by diligent pursuit.

    We discovered truth. We discovered testimony. We discovered the jury and the common law and rule of law. We discovered high trust. And with them we discovered science, medicine and technology and with it and them, built the civil commons as a competitive evolutionary strategy, and by consequence the civic society and the economic velocity that comes with it.

    But while it may take a particular people at a particular time in a particular place to invent a technology – it is also truth that all people at later times and in various places, can adopt that technology and gain the benefits of it.

    But truth and trust are hard and expensive. They are however, the most important capital for the production of innovation and prosperity for all.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    July 19, 2015

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:55:00 UTC

  • do we know about population and technological progress? A paper by Ashraf and Ga

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdfWhat do we know about population and technological progress?

    A paper by Ashraf and Galorm http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdf concludes: “…population density in pre-industrial times was on average higher at latitudinal bands closer to the equator.”

    Yet the countries closer to the equator did not end up being the drivers of industrial progress, even though they sometimes had higher rates of progress in agricultural times. Northern Europe, with the exception of the Dutch Republic, was never the star for population density. This paper also indicates that technology drives population growth — more than vice versa — and that “time elapsed since a region’s neolithic breakthrough” predicts later technological progress fairly well.

    If you add an extra baby to most societies, ceteris paribus, the rate of expected idea generation does indeed go up in theory. But how important a factor is that, compared to other influences on ideas generation?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:15:00 UTC