Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Capitalism: Why Are Investors And Shareholders Profitseekers Alone?

    They are not.

    The data clearly demonstrates that companies operate at the minimum profitability that is tolerated by creditors, and that employees and management seek the highest extraction possible that creditors will tolerate. 

    Government bureaucrats demonstrate exactly the same behavior, but government, because it is a monopoly cannot be ‘corrected’ by the forces of competition, or in practice, by law, and therefore companies tend to have very short life spans, and even very big and successful companies have very short periods at the top, where governments can persist as corrupt enterprises indefinitely.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-Why-are-investors-and-shareholders-profitseekers-alone

  • Why Haven’t Western Countries Signed The International Convention On The Protection Of The Rights Of All Migrant Workers & Members Of Their Families?

    All human rights are reducible to property rights, because all rights that can be brought into existence are reducible to property rights.  The International charter of human rights consists, in all but the last three line items, of statements of private property rights.  The last three, are not rights but ‘ambitions’ and were reluctantly admitted to the charter at the time under pressure of the then-communist governments.  These last three are not human rights but political obligations that developed countries use to hold undeveloped political authorities accountable for their acitons.

    This accountability is part of the post-war consensus, enforced by the United States as a world policeman,  that granted all states rights to respect for their borders if they obeyed human rights.  (Which Russia recently violated, destroying the postwar consensus.)

    The proposed charter is a license for the theft of property from high trust western polities by peoples of low trust cultures who are themselves unable to create high trust polities.  As such it cannot be considered a ‘right’ but instead a luxury good, or perhaps a license for limited theft.

    The rapid abandonment of socialism and communism and the worldwide adoption of capitalism have eliminated the privileged status of Western peoples because of the artificial shortage of labor.  Now that this shortage has been eliminated, western cultures no longer have labor advantages, and only have institutional advantages. As such increasing the immigration, power, or privileges of expensive underclasses is no longer affordable.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-western-countries-signed-the-International-Convention-on-the-Protection-of-the-Rights-of-All-Migrant-Workers-Members-of-Their-Families

  • What Are Ethics For An It Professional?

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ETHICS

    This is an interesting question in the sense that it’s a clear application of the problem of asymmetry of information, understanding, and power, in the control of a utility (a commons).

    In any niche where one has power and influence over others, because of an asymmetry of knowledge of a common resource that the others cannot  understand without extraordinary personal investment, and where he possesses power over others’ use of a common resource, we encounter the challenges of:

    (a) Free-riding: pretending to work in exchange for payment, while not providing market-value in return, because one is not subject to competition which would discover and cure one’s free-riding.

    (b) Corruption : seeking favors or privileges by granting favors or privileges.

    (c) Privatization : obtaining personal benefit from a common resource that could be consumed by others.

    (d) Punishment : deliberately punishing individuals and groups by virtue of one’s control over the provision of the common resource.

    (e) Harm : Deliberately causing the failure of individuals or groups by virtue of one’s control over the function of the common resource.

    (f) Functioning As An Agent: allowing one’s self to be used to free ride, engage in corruption, privatization punishment or harm.

    Take no personal benefit, give no favors, do no harm, preserve ethical independence from agency,  and make decisions at all times by the business value of the work to be performed.

    Ethical Challenges

    Political hierarchies exist by in all bureaucracies, whether private or public, which operate independently from market competition, which constantly discovers inefficiencies (corruption).

    While one an usually adhere to (a) thru (e) in one’s job, it is very hard in a bureaucracy not to be pressured into (f) (Agency) in a bureaucracy. In fact, the trading of such favors (corruption) is the currency that forms the economy of bureaucracies that are insulated from the market.

    Historical Influences
    In the 20th century, ethical pragmatism (outcome-based ethics)  has replaced ethical absolutism (rule-based ethics) due to the constant pressure of left intellectuals’ attack on western high-trust ethics.  This has allowed the ethical pragmatism of lower trust polities to spread in western culture.  As such it is difficult to operate ethically in private life, commercial life and public life, because such unethical action is beneficial to the individual while harmful to society. 

    This is why westerners are the only people to develop high trust societies. It’s very hard.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-ethics-for-an-IT-professional

  • What Proportion Of People (in Various Countries) Are Libertarian?

    It depends on whether you are referring to Christian, “classical liberal” libertarianism in the Hayekian sense, or Jewish “libertine” libertarianism in the Rothbardian sense. Around 10-12% of Americans identify themselves libertarian – although the number that consider themselves Rothbardian is not something we have trustworthy survey data for, the activism of the rothbardian libertine minority outweighs is negligible political influence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-proportion-of-people-in-various-countries-are-libertarian

  • What Are Biggest Misconceptions About Postmodernism?

    That postmodernism is a philosophical system of thought that assists us in understanding the world, acting in it, and cooperating, rather than a political system system of propaganda, for the purpose of advancing ideology.  (Read Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-biggest-misconceptions-about-postmodernism

  • Is Multiculturalism Good For Independent Thinkers Who Don’t See Themselves As Part Of Any Group In A Multiculural City/society?

    SHORT TERM LUXURY FOR LONG TERM EXPENSE

    Multiculturalism is permissible as a short term luxury that increases consumption by servicing a multitude of consumers, without requiring that consumers pay the cost of adapting to the norms of the host culture.  For this reason, both the sellers and the consumers obtain what they want at a discount. Unfortunately the discount is short term, as multiculturalism decreases trust, and increases political friction,  both of which increase transaction costs.  This is why, over the long term, multiculturalism occurs at the expense of the high trust society’s norms that made the wealth possible, that made the temporary luxury of multiculturalism possible.

    So no, multiculturalism is a a form of overconsumption. We may like it but it’s not ‘good’ by any measure. It is in fact, one of the surest ways to lead to conflict and civil war.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-multiculturalism-good-for-independent-thinkers-who-dont-see-themselves-as-part-of-any-group-in-a-multiculural-city-society

  • Capitalism: Cronyism Or Collectivism?

    I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY NOVEL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

    Neither Capitalism (the voluntary organization of production, and distributed control of property) nor Socialism (the involuntary organization of production, and the centralized control of property) is possible.   Both systems result in totalitarian oligarchies.  Economic operation under socialism is impossible.  Economic concentration under capitalism is undesirable (by the masses).  The general argument is that capitalist oligarchies destroy each other in a constant process of creative destruction, and that socialist oligarchies do not.  This appears to be fairly obvious from both the logic and the evidence.

    Given the impossibility of either, the open question is the following:

    1) HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SYMMETRY OF COSTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER NECESSARY FOR THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION GIVEN THE ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS
    Under agrarianism, when we developed political universalism, we were equally able to contribute to the economy, because human physical effort and human mental discipline were the only determinants of relative productivity.  However, increasingly, the ability to work with abstract ideas has evolved to become competitively advantageous, while labor and learning by observation and imitation have lost all value in the economy.  As such, some individuals are highly productive and others are not. And there is no evidence of this difference in productivity.

    Capitalism is the name we use for the distribution of property to individuals where they may voluntarily organize and participate in production, and where they possess the incentive to participate in production, even if their only property is their body, time, and effort.

    When we respect property: private, shareholder and commons, and when we respect norms : manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions and rituals, we pay for access to society and the market, and the system of production.  Unfortunately,

    Conversely, respect for law, order, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and norms – all of which ask us to forego opportunities for gratification, fall increasingly on the unproductive classes.  So if the lower classes must both observe laws, order, property, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and rituals, while at the same time they are unable to participate in the economy, then it is no longer logical for them to continue to forgo all these opportunities and pay the high cost of deprivation, when they obtain only access to the market for good and services, but not the ability to participate in the voluntary organization of production that forgoing opportunities for gratification makes possible. 

    2) WHY MONOPOLY FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
    Then second question is whether a society, under an homogenous government, practicing homogenous manners, ethics, morals, rituals, and myths,  really needs to exist as it has in the past.  Why for example, cannot the upper classes make use of a libertarian government, while the lower classes make use of a socialist government?  There is no reason really.  Most of western history relied upon state (nobility) and church (laity), or aristocracy (farmers) and labor (slaves – in the old world not new world sense).  The idea that we must possess a single economic and political system for people with different needs was an artifice of the enlightenment and most of our wars, and in fact, the war that nearly ended western civilization (ww1+ww2) was largely caused by the attempt to create an ideology justifying a monopoly form of government over people with dissimilar economic and political interests. 

    For economic cooperation to be possible one must possess uniform individual property rights, or economic cooperation and calculation is not possible.

    However, individuals can choose to collectivize their property, and others to atomize it, as suits their interests, and then the lower classes can negotiate with the upper classes for access to the lower classes as a market, the way states with different economies conduct trade policy with states with higher or lower standards of living and therefore costs.

    The reason we are in conflict is artificial.  We do not need to choose between socialism and capitalism.  We do not need to blend the two.  We can make use of both as we desire. Monopoly is just another word for tyranny, if our interests are sufficiently dissimilar, because our abilities to engage in productivity are sufficiently dissimilar.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-CRONYISM-OR-COLLECTIVISM

  • Is Political Economy A Discipline? How?

    “Political Economy” refers to the pre-war term for the discipline of Economics.  However, because the discipline of 20th century economics evolved to emphasize Macro-Economics and Econometrics, we use Political Economy today to refer to the study of institutions that assist in the voluntary organization of production (which is what capitalism means), by allowing individuals to cooperate in production, and providing them the incentive to cooperate in production. 

    These institutions include numbers, counting, accounting, money, banking, and interest, private property, shareholder property, common property, promise, contract, and common law.  Legislative and Regulatory law, fiat money, fiat credit, Redistribution, Fiscal, Trade and Monetary policy. 

    In practical terms we tend to separate academic economics: macro economics and econometrics into short term spending and policy tactics, from political economy: the long term effects of formal institutions (governmental institutions etc) and informal institutions (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, myths, eduction and religion).

    (I work in Political Economy not Macro Economics.)

    https://www.quora.com/Is-political-economy-a-discipline-How

  • How Has Civil Society Led To Political Developments?

    This question posits a possible misrepresentation.  No society where government supplies services is categorized as ‘civil’. A ‘civil’ society is one in where we demonstrate civic participation whether in the pre-war or greek sense: where citizens volunteer to participate in the management of the commons and the provision of services.  We live in an managerial society postwar, where the state manages professionals (bureaucrats and their agents) for the provision of services. (See Burnham). 

    The abuse of this term originates in the conflation of treating one another ‘with civility’ (without violence or coercion), with ‘civic society’, in which individuals participate in the voluntary organization and production of commons. 

    We do not live in a civic society, we live in a civil society. 

    Meaning matters.  Ideas produce consequences.

    https://www.quora.com/How-has-civil-society-led-to-political-developments

  • How Can One Determine When Subjective Reasoning Might Be Preferable To Objective Reason?

    This question is not necessarily coherent, since subjective reason is a non-sequitur. If you mean, “When is intuition more useful than reason?” then that is a question currently addressed by Kahneman and Haidt.  Intuition is very powerful, but not logical or observable.  Reason is very weak, but observable.  And they inform one another.  However, any concept of truth is determined by reason.  Any concept of preference by intuition. And we lie to ourselves whenever possible in an effort to conflate the two.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-determine-when-subjective-reasoning-might-be-preferable-to-objective-reason