Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • How Much More Capitalist Is The Us Than Germany?

    • Capitalism: the voluntary organization of consumer production.  (Liberty)
    • Socialism: the involuntary organization of consumer production. (Totalitarianism)
    • Mixed Economy: the voluntary organization of consumer production, and the involuntary redistribution of the rewards earned by organizing consumer production. (A trade-off between liberty and totalitarianism).

    Socialism is impossible, since neither the incentives to produce, nor the means of economic calculation are possible.  The only possible means of organizing production that produces surpluses is to provide both individual incentives and the means of rational calculation for pursuing those incentives.

    This means that the only possible means of organizing production that is adaptive to changes in the world (wants and scarcities) is capitalism.  This is why the entire world has adopted capitalism (the voluntary organization of consumer production). 

    However, the entire world has also adopted mixed economy consumer capitalism: that is, the authoritarian regulation and taking of the rewards from the voluntary organization of production, for the purpose of redistribution (By licit or illicit means, for licit or illicit purposes.)

    So the entire world practices capitalism and none of the world practices socialism. Instead, the whole world practices mixed economy capitalism by taking the maximum amount that they can extract from the organizers of production without disrupting the organization of production. 

    Now, the difference between the USA and Germany is such:
    1) germans are less diverse (more homogeneous) and homogeneous societies (see scandinavia) are comfortable with redistribution (sacrifice of my family and children and subsequent generations) for the service of yours. However, diverse polities are not comfortable with sacrificing for their competitors, any more than germans are happy redistributing to Turks, or mediterranean cultures that are lazier and more corrupt.  America by contrast has an old historical problem of diversity of many peoples, and self reliance.   The more diverse a people the less tolerance for redistribution.

    2) America is not comparable to Germany per se, but to Europe in total. There are 50 American states, and no less than 9 or 10 american regional cultures, and just as brussels is  perceived as a dictatorship the american government is perceived as a dictatorship by the central and southern peoples of the american continent, that works for the advantage of the high population centers of immigrants on the coastal areas.

    As such Germany is both more homogenous, smaller, and more likely to redistribute, (over the objections of the south), while America is larger, more diverse, and less willing to redistribute.  The reason is that germans are not competitors for power with one another (mostly) but american regions are at war with one another using the government as a proxy.

    For these reasons Germany is less an advocate of a mixed economy than say California or New York, but more so than say Iowa, Georgia and Alaska.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-capitalist-is-the-US-than-Germany

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • ON NON-PRODUCERS

    ON NON-PRODUCERS

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:42:00 UTC

  • I just realized, that Oversing is an enormous elaborate lie detector….. wow. W

    I just realized, that Oversing is an enormous elaborate lie detector….. wow. What does that mean?

    (I mean… is that what I was doing all along… for years, and never knew it? Just by following my intuitions?)

    fuk… I’m going to add a specific gossip metric…. or maybe we’ll add heavy weight to gossip in the Soft Skills, by creating a negative weight? Yes. Negatives…. Yep.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:40:00 UTC

  • ETHICS: THE RIDER SERVES THE ELEPHANT —“Nobody is ever going to invent an ethi

    ETHICS: THE RIDER SERVES THE ELEPHANT

    —“Nobody is ever going to invent an ethics class that makes people behave ethically after they step out of the classroom. Classes are for riders, and riders are just going to use their new knowledge to serve their elephants more effectively. “— Jonathan Haidt.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:35:00 UTC

  • WRONG QUESTION? Does intellectual conservatism exist? This may be the wrong ques

    http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/06/24/whither-intellectual-conservatism/THE WRONG QUESTION?

    Does intellectual conservatism exist? This may be the wrong question.

    I’ll argue that yes, intellectual conservatism does exist. Although, when you say “intellectual” it is somewhat troublesome, because it’s not sufficiently articulate for the purpose you intend. Instead, humans demonstrate the ability to argue( persuade or justify) using a limited number of frameworks – and those frameworks constitute a spectrum of complexity from the simplistically intuitive to the ratio-empirical. The question is, what form of argument do you consider to be classifiable as intellectual, where on this spectrum to conservatives conduct their arguments, and for what reason do they fail to conduct their arguments in the manner you consider intellectual.

    ARGUMENTATIVE SPECTRUM

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject. While used as an argument, it is not. It is merely an opinion or expression.

    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.

    4) HISTORICAL (analogical / correlative):

    5) RATIONAL (internally consistent)

    6) SCIENTIFIC (correlative and directly empirical)

    7) ECONOMIC: (correlative and *indirectly* empirical)

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive, internally consistent and externally correspondent)

    Conservatism, when discussed outside of economics, where it is almost never discussed, is almost always expressed in arational terms (moral argument). Sometimes it is expressed in legal terms – the classical liberal and constitutionalist argument). Sometimes it is expressed in what we call the Burkeian or ‘psychological’ form of argument. But rarely as an analytic, scientific, or economic argument. And never as the central propositions of conservatism – because those central propositions would be untenable to a popular democratic polity – even if they were indeed morally, economically, and politically superior. This is because the popular democratic argument is a failed one, that is in direct conflict with conservatism as a social, economic, political and legal strategy.

    So, conservatism is argued most often, “arationally”. The value of conservatism, as an *ARATIONAL* social system of myths, traditions, habits, and formal institutions, is that such a structure, much like religious faith, is impervious to fashionable changes, and in particular, verbal manipulation by Schumpeterian public intellectuals. In fact, I have argued, and I think successfully, that conservatism as practiced is demonstrably scientific: evidentiary – while progressivism is demonstrably and successfully verbalist. A fact which is somewhat humorous or ironic or depressing depending upon one’s own disposition: in effect while conservatism is arationally structured, and progressivism is rationally structured, it turns out that conservatism as practiced is scientific, and progressive is unscientific (religious). Furthermore, science itself is practiced demonstrably, not argumentatively – which only serves to lend credence to the conservative prohibition on hubris, and the mandate for demonstrated results rather than verbal hypothesis.

    THE PROBLEMS OF AN ‘INTELLECTUAL’ CONSERVATISM

    1) Just as we solved the calculus and physics, before we solved economics and social science, conservatism has been unsolved (unarticulated in ratio-scientific terms) because it is a more complicated system than we had anticipated. And such complicated systems of thought are very hard to use in argument. Worse, they are hard to use in political argument because, under a democratic polity, we require numbers, and complicated arguments are the province of a permanent minority. Until conservatism is articulated in ratio-empirical form, and until public intellectuals can reduce those complex statements to simple narratives and memes, conservatism (Anglo-European Aristocratic Egalitarianism) is an advanced form of social order that is nearly impossible for ordinary people to argumentatively defend.

    2) There doesn’t appear to be demand for intellectual argument in conservatism, precisely because conservatives are so dependent upon taught, learned and innate moral intuition. If conservatives cannot ‘feel’ it then they don’t trust it. This turns out to be fairly good when one prevents adding false ideas to conservatism, but it turns out to be fairly difficult to argue conservatism rationally. So therefore, as a majority, conservatism can function and persist in a body of people. But under democratic rule, cultural and political diversity, the need to argue rationally in order to produce laws, and the ability to use law to impose changes upon the body politic, conservative arationalism is a weakness because conservative principles are not sufficiently defensible against (dishonest) framing, loading, overloading, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience. Which is why the 20th century has been so harmful to conservatism: the cosmopolitans were merely superior at using the media to broadcast and repeat as a mantra, nearly any framed, loaded, overloaded, pseudo-rational (postmodern), and pseudoscientific (marxist-socialist) program.

    3) I generally test my ideas in the libertarian (libertine) community precisely because libertarianism (libertinism) is an intellectual ideology: structured as a very rigid, very analytic, moral, legal, and economic argument. Libertarians (libertines) are wrong, which is why their argument fails universally in all political populations. But at least it is possible to conduct conservative argument in moral, legal, and economic terms, and develop one’s arguments there. Most of us find, that even if we produce, as you say ‘intellectual’ philosophy, but I would state as ‘ratio-empirical, moral, analytic, legal, and economic philosophy’, conservatives behave so anti-intellectually, that the advocacy of conservatism in ratio-empirical, analytic, moral, legal, and economic terms, is exasperating.

    SO THE QUESTION MAY BE “WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES SO ANTI-INTELLECTUAL” rather than why are no conservative philosophers extant. I’m here. A few others are. But the conservative community does not demonstrate a demand for ‘intellectual’ arguments. All things considered, that is not necessarily a criticism. It just so happens that if the academy and the state conspire rather than are separated as were church and state, and in an age of expensive consumer-driven media, financed by hedonistic consumption, conservatives face a perfect storm of destructive incentives, against which traditionalism is not a sufficiently resistant means of argument, because we lack the economic means of ostracizing bad behaviors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 16:07:00 UTC

  • CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS The attribution of value to an objec

    CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    The attribution of value to an object, rather than it’s cost of acquisition, is to confuse it’s cost to the producer with its value in exchange. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to attribute cost to the user, to market value, it is an error to attribute market value, to cost to the user. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to confuse that which the individual will act to defend, as the transformational product of his efforts, with the conflicts that a polity will choose to defend. This is an irrefutable statement.

    I other words, the Rothbardian cosmopolitan lie is an attempt to use overloading (which clearly is a successful means of lying) to force the strong, high trust, landed, with built capital, to permit parasitism by production-less exchange, frauds of various asymmetries, lies, deceptions conspiracies, privatizations of commons, socializations of losses, and a host of immoralities.

    The purpose of Rothbardian ethics is to justify parasitism. It is in fact,t he most organized, systematic, advocacy of immorality ever constructed by man.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:26:00 UTC

  • THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC (worth

    THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC

    (worth repeating)

    Violence is the starting point for all cooperative, ethical, moral, and political questions. The first question of all ethics is quite simple: “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff?” All questions of cooperation, ethics, and politics are consequent to that question.

    It is a common fallacy, including the fallacy of argumentation, that violence is external to the question of cooperation. Arguing such is an attempt, by use of obscurant, verbalist deception, to forbid retaliation while retaining the ability to conduct fraud, conspiracy, and immorality.

    The fact that it was so easy to attract and persuade fools who fall prey to the rationalist fallacy, and to the fallacy of aggression, and even to the fallacy of argumentation, is an example of how simple it is to overload human reason.

    I find it somewhat humorous that we had to invent writing, numbers, arithmetic, history, and law, to compensate for our ability merely to remember. We had to invent mathematics, geometry to overcome the limits of our perception. We had an enormously absurd struggle to invent calculus of independent objects, and that Einstein’s (albeit not Poincare’s) revolution is nothing more than the absolute abandonment of relative framing.

    Yet the average imbecile still suggests that reason and rationalism are somehow of the same caliber as the various forms of calculation and the vast institutional networks for calculating, we have built in every single area of life, in order for us to compensate for the absolutely illusory competence of reason, perception, memory and judgement.

    Only an idiot would fall for such a fallacy. But then, without a means of calculation, it is easy to be an idiot.

    Hence, Propertarianism. ie: morality stated as calculation, independent of judgement, memory, perception, and reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:13:00 UTC

  • IS HOSTILE TO MALES. WE ARE HARDER TO MAKE, MORE EXPENDABLE. WE ARE WHERE NATURE

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-odds-of-having-boy-or-girl-2014-10NATURE IS HOSTILE TO MALES. WE ARE HARDER TO MAKE, MORE EXPENDABLE. WE ARE WHERE NATURE EXPERIMENTS.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:02:00 UTC

  • Steve Pender just PM”d me a few ideas that were very interesting, and tied in wi

    Steve Pender just PM”d me a few ideas that were very interesting, and tied in with my interest in stoicism (demonstrated action) as a cultural discipline. If you stop creating (transforming), only work in a bureaucracy, only work with information, and listen only to marketing… what happens?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 14:09:00 UTC