Author: Curt Doolittle

  • REASONS FOR CASUAL DRESS IN SEATTLE From; There are some pretty understandable r

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/02/28/suffering-for-fashion-not-in-seattle/THE REASONS FOR CASUAL DRESS IN SEATTLE

    From; http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/02/28/suffering-for-fashion-not-in-seattle/

    There are some pretty understandable reasons why Seattle dresses casually.

    a) Scandinavian heritage – we don’t signal ostentatiously.

    b) When we do signal, we do so with sport or fitness. This signals that we are ‘locals’, not ‘those uncouth people.’

    c) Because we signal with sport or fitness we wear clothes that signal recreation.

    d) It’s changing, but it used to be that when you asked someone what they did, they replied with their form of recreatoin, not their job.

    e) We have a tradition of rebelling against the ‘east’ and clothing was one of those ways of demonstrating our special-ness.

    f) We imported a lot of engineers directly out of college and often attracted them with persisting the college lifestyle.

    g) The hippie movement that drove population into the northwest, with more communal to portland and more work oriented to seattle, perpetuated our natural biases toward comfortable clothes.

    h) people around the world generally signal with clothing if they have taste but less money. In the USA we signal with cars and houses. In the northwest we signal our effeteness with casualness.

    i) Our young professionals are largely from the middle class already and they work in the suburbs and drive cars, instead of walking in the city where signaling with fashion often grants you access to dating opportunities..

    j) In general, white (protestant) people signal with complexity (intellectual expression) rather than more base emotions – and seattle is the whitest large city in America.

    k) Fashion dress (street fashion) is a preoccupation of the lower middle and upper proletarian classes (most consumers.) Seattle doesn’t have an old aspiring working class looking to demonstrate their fitness for inclusion.

    l) in the attached map of the states, you’ll notice that high style over comfort areas are hispanic, and high comfort over style areas are anglo-germanic.

    In simple terms, we view ‘trying hard’ at style to be ‘gauche’. For all the reasons above.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-01 02:42:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/human-rights-popular-sovereignty-liberal-republican-versions/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-27 02:29:00 UTC

  • Status? What’s that? Panic? 🙂 THE TOUGH A) I’m behind on getting the Propertari

    Status? What’s that? Panic? 🙂

    THE TOUGH

    A) I’m behind on getting the Propertarian Institute off the ground. I wanted to do it in January, but it’s the end of february already. (Apologies to my friends that this is affecting.)

    B) We are refactoring Oversing’s code to reflect the UI model we’ve adopted. And the development team has caught up to me again, meaning that I”m behind designing the UI again. Sigh. The problem is that the part I’m designing is one of the hardest feature sets in the product.

    C) We’re having a conflict with our vendor here in Kiev because of space and network quality. We’ve taken our own office. (Which is walking distance from all sorts of good things.) And so I have to get an office together on short notice.

    D) I am trying to put two web sites together for two companies (which is fun really – I love positioning and marketing.)

    E) I am burning more money per month than I wanted to. And being the cheap b_____ that I am, it really bothers me. 🙂

    F) The guys developed a xlat (multi-language) function set and it’s all implemented. But I found a commercial bit of code that does the job perfectly with fewer requests and less labor and it’s just got to be put in, and the other code pulled. This will get us every language we could possibly want. Saving us months of time, and lots of money.

    G) There is a Libertarian ‘conference’ next month. Ukraine doesn’t want me going in and out of the country without my residency permit. So my lawyer is sprinting to get it done.

    H) The post-soviet government stuff here is simply impossible. It doesn’t matter that the politicians are corrupt – they actually pass good laws. The problem is that the bureaucracy self-perpetuates silly soviet process orientation (blame avoidance really) and the judges don’t enforce the rule of law. So literally, the bureaucracy and the judiciary has to literally die off before these people can get out of the hole. And that means that I have to be in this hole with them.

    GOOD STUFF

    A) Steven is designing the system reports and they are amazing. Seriously. I was blown away this morning when I read his spec. No one in the world has this kind of business intelligence combined with this kind of ‘social engineering of the organization’. No one. It’s … amazing.

    B) Integrating with accounting systems is easier than we thought.

    C) Max and I had a brilliant conversation about document stores. I am adamant that I want all docs to be stored by mail, so that anything can be cc’d to an account or project and no other steps are necessary. It should just be a simple inbox list. That’s it. Max fought with me and got me to see how we could use existing stores. He was right.

    D) The software looks awesome. 🙂 And the code is both fast and elegant. Really. Every other product will look two or three generations behind. We’re right in-trend.

    E) The weather is changing – it’s becoming spring. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-27 01:50:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS I am pretty convinced that all the evidence available to us today co

    METAPHYSICS

    I am pretty convinced that all the evidence available to us today confirms that we experience the material universe correspondingly.

    That our perception can be extended to both micro and macro scales through devices.

    That our perception of causal relations can be extended through recording information at micro, normal, and macro scales and then replaying these recordings at higher speed so that patterns emerge within our visible perceptions.

    That our perception of such causal relations is limited by the very small number of axis of causality we can cognitively identify.

    That our ability to improve this process of causal analysis is limited by our current concept of mathematics.

    That our deductive capabilities are jaundiced by our various cognitive biases.

    That our particular human preferences limit our ability to reason clearly.

    That the variation in human ability and rationality limit our collective accomplishment.

    And that superior intelligence, memory, and perception would only increase the rate at which we comprehend these relations

    That superior distributions of knowledge and intelligence would further improve that rate.

    And that different biases and preferences would do little more than impede that understanding in different ways.

    But there is little if any evidence that the vast metaphysical and epistemological distraction enthralling the philosophical profession has produced insight or value.

    Humans must act. All else is entertainment.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-26 05:58:00 UTC

  • ‘WEIRDNESS’ (UNIQUENESS) OF WESTERNERS – AND AMERICANS IN PARTICULAR (You Should

    http://www.propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/THE ‘WEIRDNESS’ (UNIQUENESS) OF WESTERNERS – AND AMERICANS IN PARTICULAR

    (You Should Read This Post. It’s a reply to the Pacific Standard article at the end of the post.)

    Dear Ethan Walters:

    Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlightenment).

    History, Economics and Anthropology have addressed this issue for decades:

    RICHARD DUCHESENE: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

    MARIjA GIMBUTAS: (Everything she has written)

    SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.

    KAREN ARMSTRONG: The Great Transformation

    (Or See the reading list at: propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/)

    We’ve learned that our enlightenment view of humanity is flawed. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power from the landed aristocracy and the church, by the emerging middle class of northern european merchants.

    That political change may have been necessary in order to create the industrial society that we live in. However, the aristocratic view of man and mankind was accurate. And our ‘enlightened’ view of the perfect natural man if only ‘set free’ is simply an error. Man is an animal that must be trained to participate in one society of another.

    Our ‘progressive’ view of humanity is flawed as well. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power by women and the working classes. The ‘progressive view’ was put forth by Marx and Freud.

    But as Friedrich Hayek said, the trend in 20th century political ideology, which was the product of Marx and Freud, will eventually be seen as a new era of mysticism – with no basis in fact. In fact, counter-to-fact.

    And that will mirror the warnings of most of the great historians: Toynbee, Gibbon, Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Durant, Burnham, McNeil, Keegan. That we are unique and unique for circumstantial reasons, and that all of science and reason are the product of our uniqueness.

    It has only been since the progressive ideology has become received wisdom due to the ‘revisionist history’ put forth by the last generation of academics, and then followed by the collapse of western economic uniqueness, that we have begun to see scientists, and a new generation of academics begin to undermine that ideological view of man.

    Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate.

    Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader.

    Then, the church created individual property rights, and created the universalism which led to the high trust society when it tried to break up the noble families, outlawed cousin marriage, and gave women property rights. Western high trust is a produced within the Hanjal line and the Lotharingian kingdom at the bottom, and the english and scandinavians at the top.

    Manorialism: or the ownership of land, and the need for men to demonstrate their conformity and reliability, as well as participate in military when needed, in order to gain access to land, created the protestant ethic. It encourage the working classes to adopt the ethics of the nobility.

    Chivalry provided a means for men regardless of land-holding to demonstrate their socials status through service -which is a unique means of status achievement we thing of as ‘heroism’ that no other society has in such abstract, non-familial terms.

    The need to ‘keep the east at bay’ using the germans, and therefore preserving german militarism was a intentional choice of the catholic countries. The western high trust society is the product of this aristocratic egalitarian individualism.

    Culture is a set of property definitions, property rights, relying upon myths, traditions and rituals to propagate those rights. It is a set of rules for sending status signals. Status signals are those things that we imitate because they give us better access to mates and opportunities. Property definitions vary from the individual to the commons on one axis, and administration of it from the individual to the state on the other. Cultures matter. Our culture matters most. Cultures are not equal, and ours was (not is) unique.

    Northern European (protestant) Americans (at least to some degree) carry this ancient aristocratic tradition with them today. It isn’t well understood that the anglo-celtic and german populations were about equal in america until the progressive strategy to take over ‘white’ america through immigration was put in place in the 60’s. (But that’s why American english speech is flatter than UK english – it’s merged with the flatter german tonal structure.)

    Americans did not have an ‘aristocracy’ or a landed church to rebel against. There was no opportunity like in europe to create a popular “US vs Them”. We retained our distaste for government, where the europeans saw themselves as taking over the government from the aristocracy and church. Instead, it became feminists and the lower classes against white protestant male culture. This is one of the reasons why other cultures think our male-female relations are ‘businesslike’ rather than intimate and affectionate.

    And quite contrary to the revisionist progressive historians, it was not luck that made we westerners successful in our ‘great divergence’. The west was a poorer, less numerous people on the edge of the bronze age who used technology, cooperation, speed and strategy to give their inferior numbers the advantage against an east that was always more brutal, totalitarian, numerous and wealthy.

    Americans have the lock on the world’s speculative capital, because we are the people least likely to abuse it through various schemes of privatization. In abstract terms, we own the stock market. and the Brits own the Bond market. The brits lend and the americans risk. You can trust an english speaker or one of the varieties of german speaker with your money. But you pretty much can’t trust anyone else in the world. And that is a cultural value that runs back 4500 years.

    We westerners apologize for our conquest and colonialism, but we have spent the past five hundred years dragging humanity out of ignorance, mysticism, totalitarianism and dirt-scratching crushing poverty, hunger and disease. We should not feel guilty for it. We should instead, require others thank us for it. For while we did it sloppily at times, we did it none the less.

    (In essence, that’s the Dark Enlightenment philosophy.)

    http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-26 03:29:00 UTC

  • Ethan Walters: Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlighten

    http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

    Ethan Walters:

    Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlightenment).

    History, Economics and Anthropology have addressed this issue for decades:

    RICHARD DUCHESENE: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

    MARIjA GIMBUTAS: (Everything she has written)

    SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.

    KAREN ARMSTRONG: The Great Transformation

    (Or See the reading list at: propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/)

    We’ve learned that our enlightenment view of humanity is flawed. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power from the landed aristocracy and the church, by the emerging middle class of northern european merchants.

    That political change may have been necessary in order to create the industrial society that we live in. However, the aristocratic view of man and mankind was accurate. And our ‘enlightened’ view of the perfect natural man if only ‘set free’ is simply an error. Man is an animal that must be trained to participate in one society of another.

    Our ‘progressive’ view of humanity is flawed as well. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power by women and the working classes. The ‘progressive view’ was put forth by Marx and Freud.

    But as Friedrich Hayek said, the trend in 20th century political ideology, which was the product of Marx and Freud, will eventually be seen as a new era of mysticism – with no basis in fact. In fact, counter-to-fact.

    And that will mirror the warnings of most of the great historians: Toynbee, Gibbon, Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Durant, Burnham, McNeil, Keegan. That we are unique and unique for circumstantial reasons, and that all of science and reason are the product of our uniqueness.

    It has only been since the progressive ideology has become received wisdom due to the ‘revisionist history’ put forth by the last generation of academics, and then followed by the collapse of western economic uniqueness, that we have begun to see scientists, and a new generation of academics begin to undermine that ideological view of man.

    Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate.

    Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader.

    Then, the church created individual property rights, and created the universalism which led to the high trust society when it tried to break up the noble families, outlawed cousin marriage, and gave women property rights. Western high trust is a produced within the Hanjal line and the Lotharingian kingdom at the bottom, and the english and scandinavians at the top.

    Manorialism: or the ownership of land, and the need for men to demonstrate their conformity and reliability, as well as participate in military when needed, in order to gain access to land, created the protestant ethic. It encourage the working classes to adopt the ethics of the nobility.

    Chivalry provided a means for men regardless of land-holding to demonstrate their socials status through service -which is a unique means of status achievement we thing of as ‘heroism’ that no other society has in such abstract, non-familial terms.

    The need to ‘keep the east at bay’ using the germans, and therefore preserving german militarism was a intentional choice of the catholic countries. The western high trust society is the product of this aristocratic egalitarian individualism.

    Culture is a set of property definitions, property rights, relying upon myths, traditions and rituals to propagate those rights. It is a set of rules for sending status signals. Status signals are those things that we imitate because they give us better access to mates and opportunities. Property definitions vary from the individual to the commons on one axis, and administration of it from the individual to the state on the other. Cultures matter. Our culture matters most. Cultures are not equal, and ours was (not is) unique.

    Northern European (protestant) Americans (at least to some degree) carry this ancient aristocratic tradition with them today. It isn’t well understood that the anglo-celtic and german populations were about equal in america until the progressive strategy to take over ‘white’ america through immigration was put in place in the 60’s. (But that’s why American english speech is flatter than UK english – it’s merged with the flatter german tonal structure.)

    Americans did not have an ‘aristocracy’ or a landed church to rebel against. There was no opportunity like in europe to create a popular “US vs Them”. We retained our distaste for government, where the europeans saw themselves as taking over the government from the aristocracy and church. Instead, it became feminists and the lower classes against white protestant male culture. This is one of the reasons why other cultures think our male-female relations are ‘businesslike’ rather than intimate and affectionate.

    And quite contrary to the revisionist progressive historians, it was not luck that made we westerners successful in our ‘great divergence’. The west was a poorer, less numerous people on the edge of the bronze age who used technology, cooperation, speed and strategy to give their inferior numbers the advantage against an east that was always more brutal, totalitarian, numerous and wealthy.

    Americans have the lock on the world’s speculative capital, because we are the people least likely to abuse it through various schemes of privatization. In abstract terms, we own the stock market. and the Brits own the Bond market. The brits lend and the americans risk. You can trust an english speaker or one of the varieties of german speaker with your money. But you pretty much can’t trust anyone else in the world. And that is a cultural value that runs back 4500 years.

    We westerners apologize for our conquest and colonialism, but we have spent the past five hundred years dragging humanity out of ignorance, mysticism, totalitarianism and dirt-scratching crushing poverty, hunger and disease. We should not feel guilty for it. We should instead, require others thank us for it. For while we did it sloppily at times, we did it none the less.

    (In essence, that’s the Dark Enlightenment philosophy.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-26 03:19:00 UTC

  • EUROCON, sci-fi convention, will take place soon in Kiev. Maybe it interests you

    EUROCON, sci-fi convention, will take place soon in Kiev. Maybe it interests you – http://eurocon.org.ua/press-release.html


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-24 16:50:00 UTC

  • RENT SEEKING In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial o

    RENT SEEKING

    In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production.

    In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies.

    In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange.

    We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts.

    The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer.

    Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral.

    Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money.

    One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities.

    But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers.

    Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities.

    Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-24 11:56:00 UTC

  • ruth·less /ˈro͞oTHləs/ Adjective Having or showing no pity or compassion for oth

    ruth·less

    /ˈro͞oTHləs/

    Adjective

    Having or showing no pity or compassion for others. feeling or showing no mercy;

    Synonyms

    merciless – pitiless – unmerciful – remorseless

    Propertarian translation: disregard for externalities. Different from ‘cruel’ which is to intentionally cause externalities.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-23 05:49:00 UTC

  • LEARNING EUPHAMISMS “She isn’t friendly with her head.” (Not friendly with her h

    LEARNING EUPHAMISMS

    “She isn’t friendly with her head.”

    (Not friendly with her head. )

    Russian for “shes crazy”.

    Не дружит с головой

    I love russian. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-23 05:19:00 UTC