Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Freedom is Wasted On Those Seeking Consumption

    Guest Post by Anonymous

    –“The founding fathers knew that freedom is wasted on those who are not pursuing virtue. They envisioned America, not as a hedonist utopia, but as a place where one was free to pursue a virtuous life. The French, on the other hand, began their revolution as a revolution our modern progressives would love to implement now: they executed all the priests and clergy they could get their hands on, burned churches, slaughtered the upper classes, erected a statue to “Reason”, and created an a theocratic tyranny of relativism, that suffered no dissent. They descended into such a sustained orgy of violence and destruction, that the only thing that could stop it was the military dictatorship of Napoleon.”–

    [T]he founding fathers did not understand virtue as excellences: production, rather than consumption: transforming the world for the betterment of man.

    Becoming gods.

  • Freedom is Wasted On Those Seeking Consumption

    Guest Post by Anonymous

    –“The founding fathers knew that freedom is wasted on those who are not pursuing virtue. They envisioned America, not as a hedonist utopia, but as a place where one was free to pursue a virtuous life. The French, on the other hand, began their revolution as a revolution our modern progressives would love to implement now: they executed all the priests and clergy they could get their hands on, burned churches, slaughtered the upper classes, erected a statue to “Reason”, and created an a theocratic tyranny of relativism, that suffered no dissent. They descended into such a sustained orgy of violence and destruction, that the only thing that could stop it was the military dictatorship of Napoleon.”–

    [T]he founding fathers did not understand virtue as excellences: production, rather than consumption: transforming the world for the betterment of man.

    Becoming gods.

  • The rate at which free riding accumulates, and therefore the rate at which trust

    The rate at which free riding accumulates, and therefore the rate at which trust erodes, and economic velocity declines, is determined by the time between an innovation in free riding, and its suppression by law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-11 10:55:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) –“Disciplinary specialization gives opportunity to satisfy ou

    (worth repeating)

    –“Disciplinary specialization gives opportunity to satisfy our desire for moral specialization.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-11 09:48:00 UTC

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

  • My “Bosses” in the Evolution of Propertarianism

    (humor)

    [Y]ou know, it’s funny, but Propertarianism is no longer a solo effort. I have a manager, an editor, and multiple advisors, helpful critics, and in some cases, people who are better than I am at USING propertarianism. And it feels a little bit like I’m an engineer on a project trying to create infrastructure.


    You *are* creating infrastructure, Curt – for sure! Intellectual and moral infrastructure!  — Davin Eastley


  • My “Bosses” in the Evolution of Propertarianism

    (humor)

    [Y]ou know, it’s funny, but Propertarianism is no longer a solo effort. I have a manager, an editor, and multiple advisors, helpful critics, and in some cases, people who are better than I am at USING propertarianism. And it feels a little bit like I’m an engineer on a project trying to create infrastructure.


    You *are* creating infrastructure, Curt – for sure! Intellectual and moral infrastructure!  — Davin Eastley