Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UKRAINIAN ENTREPRENEURS. I crashed a Ukrainian entreprene

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UKRAINIAN ENTREPRENEURS.

    I crashed a Ukrainian entrepreneurs meeting tonight. I like to visit these whenever I can, wherever on earth I am at the time. And see if I can help anyone at all, or meet some interesting people. Tonight was fun – really.

    Talked about how much I love Ukraine and didn’t realize myself how passionate I am.

    Many had the same feeling. But the reason why is interesting: because we all felt we could make a difference here, and in the west we can be consumers, sure, but have no meaningful impact.

    That realization and the feeling was moving. In Ukraine, every entrepreneur matters.

    Every single one.

    And that is a spiritual reward that is hard to obtain elsewhere.

    I need to propagate that message. Ukraine is awesome for biz.

    Met a young lawyer in IT law educated in the UK. Gonna switch. Hate my UA lawyer. ( american).

    Had to stay in message that you find customers with problems and create companies to solve them. You do not build a business you know about and sell it. I want to kill the “idea” meme and push the customer meme because that is the primary reason young people fail. No matter what you think, you’re just ignorant by your customers standards. You must find problems customers cant solve and know more about that than they do. Otherwise you are wasting your time and theirs with your ignorance.

    Talked a little about why Ukraine can only export labor: because there is no accumulated capital whether cultural, institutional, organizational, not patterns of trade, no trusted networks. No accumulated advantage at all. They need to get local capital investment to build Ukrainian companies that accumulate capital locally rather than exporting all the capital produced by their cheap labor.we think in terms of companies in the west but it is the network of companies in any sector that produces goods and services – including the most important companies: the courts/lawyers and banks/accountants. Ukraine doesn’t have them.

    You cannot really fathom how important Austrian economics is to business people ( sans Misesian pseudoscience) in this part of the world. Macro is for politicians. Austrian is for entrepreneurs. ( i hope i live ling enough to repair Austrian economics and rescue it from misesian pseudoscience). I kinda think its gonna take beyond my lifetime to get across how important my ideas are)

    Pissed off one guy by saying that it was cheaper to pay unnecessary government employees to stay home than to have them impede the economy.

    Same guy who thought it was good that the government tried to force money to stay in the country rather than give people reasons to keep it here. He said something else economically destructive. But I forgot it. I should have given him more attention because i didn’t explain his (common) errors. And now he will just hate me. But I cant be on my game all the time..,

    I fucking love ukrainians: all the goodness of americans without the bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 14:48:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy : A Kinship of Property Rights

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTARIANISM A kinship of property rights. The initiatic brotherhood of warriors. The cult of egalitarian sovereignty The origins of western exceptionalism. The only possible means of possessing liberty. The solution to the problem of creating extra-familial trust, is achieved by the extension of property rights, in exchange for the reciprocal guarantee of defending each other’s property. I didn’t invent it. I just wrote it down. For the first time in 4000 years. (And it wasn’t easy either.)

  • Aristocracy : A Kinship of Property Rights

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTARIANISM A kinship of property rights. The initiatic brotherhood of warriors. The cult of egalitarian sovereignty The origins of western exceptionalism. The only possible means of possessing liberty. The solution to the problem of creating extra-familial trust, is achieved by the extension of property rights, in exchange for the reciprocal guarantee of defending each other’s property. I didn’t invent it. I just wrote it down. For the first time in 4000 years. (And it wasn’t easy either.)

  • I’m envious of the guys who are great husbands, fathers, friends, and providers

    I’m envious of the guys who are great husbands, fathers, friends, and providers who don’t get involved in selfish nonsense like philosophy, politics, public anything, and other self gratifying obsessions. I mean, I wish I could be one of them. I would be suicidal if I tried. I have to feed the merciless dopamine seeking machine in my head with information, competition, and whatever else it needs to keep busy enough to leave me alone. But when I see those family pictures, I see the same thing other people do when they look at athletes, musicians, entrepreneurs and politicians. I see what is beyond my ability to obtain. And while it used to make me sad, I understand that each of us moves humanity forward in our own ways, and we are not able to or meant to be equal in this world. It takes each of us to fill each possible niche. So I content myself with respecting and admiring those that have done what I have not and cannot seem to do no matter how hard I try.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 10:29:00 UTC

  • Is Statism More Utilitarian Than Aristocracy?

    FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Is Statism More Utilitarian Than Aristocracy?

    FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • “The closest you should get to denim shorts is helping a woman out of them”– lo

    –“The closest you should get to denim shorts is helping a woman out of them”–

    lol. Priceless.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 09:43:00 UTC

  • Manufacturing Liberty

    (Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.

  • Manufacturing Liberty

    (Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.

  • I am not sure how you get praxeology and apriorism in the same argument, because

    I am not sure how you get praxeology and apriorism in the same argument, because operationalism (praxeology) and justification (apriorism) are like oil and water. They don’t mix. They’re mutually exclusive concepts.

    Then, you pour gasoline on it, and call it a ‘science’ when it’s not, and we get ‘pseudoscience’ out of it. Sigh. No wonder Misesians look stupid all the time.

    Why nobody figured that out is sorta’ exasperating.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 07:03:00 UTC