Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • TEN LIES ONLINE

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-hodge/online-dating-lies_b_1930053.htmlTOP TEN LIES ONLINE

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-12 02:46:00 UTC

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/10/11/women-do-everything-here-the-absence-of-chivalry-in-byzantines/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 18:31:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/256461975796715520

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • BAD BOYS IN BODRUM

    BAD BOYS IN BODRUM

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 14:51:00 UTC

  • THE ARISTOCRATIC DOCTRINE OF CEO’S “I don’t care who is in charge as long as the

    THE ARISTOCRATIC DOCTRINE OF CEO’S

    “I don’t care who is in charge as long as they’re not even worse at it than I am.”

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 14:00:00 UTC

  • “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES “I cook, I cl

    “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer.” – Nikka.

    Chivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands.

    But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church.

    Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends.

    This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive.

    The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character.

    This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society.

    Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now.

    There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember:

    1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west.

    2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence.

    3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history.

    As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west.

    Affections to all.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 13:55:00 UTC

  • Why Should A Person Believe In Austrian Economics?

    It is not a question of ‘belief’. There are five or six different strategic economic biases in favor of a different set of levers for encouraging an economy. These different levers vary from the fastest and most redistributive and distorting to the slowest, least redistributive and distorting.   They are loosely Modern Monetary (fastest), Monetarism, Fiscal Policy, Industrial policy, and Human Capital policy (slowest – austrianism).

    The other criticisms of the ideas of these schools as consisting of ‘true’ or ‘false’ propositions are absurd. All schools are merely utilitarian, and reward one or more sectors of an economy and one or more social classes, asymmetrically. All have side effects that are positive or negative.   Austrianism trades slower growth for greater personal freedom, greater innovation, smaller boom and bust cycles, with greater development of a natural aristocracy, and natural intertemporal increases in the rate of expansion of the economy between the classes.

    The competition between the schools is merely a preference for one set of EXTERNALITIES over another set of externalities.  With austrianism preferring to cause the lowest redistribution of capital, and the greatest reward, and greatest incentive for entrepreneurship, and the least incentive for political actors, and the greatest diversity of wealth (inequality), in exchange for greater relative wealth for all.  It also has the best system of feedback for the expansion of positive norms – which conservatives feel (correctly) are more important for the expansion of an economy than any other property.

    Claims that austiranism is apodeicitcally certain are specious.  Any system so certain must be substantially complete, and praxeology as it is currently constructed is incomplete enough that it cannot render judgements of certainty except in the most reductio (absurd) cases. (I am trying to fix this problem but it will take me another year or so.)   Instead, praxeological analysis simply exposes the the incentives of individuals and illustrates their rational actions,  IN effect allowing us to judge whether our ascertations about human behavior are true or false.   This leads to exceptional insights about human nature in an economy.  However, a) this does not invalidate the other schools only opens the door for discussions of trade offs.  b) we have been wrong on a number of topics that appear to be rational to individual actors but in practice are false (stickiness of prices, and irrationality of actions.)  

    The central tenet of austiranism, is the business cycle theory, which states that any  intervention in an economy will pervert incentives and information and causes worse busts and booms.  This argument appears to be correct. It is just questionably useful in a democracy where voters will demand action from government.

    A wise man would say, that each of these sets of levers and externalities has value to moving an economy.  But that it appears to be impossible in our democratically structured politcal system, to use each lever for the purposes to which it is suited, and for the benefit of all.  Politics in democracy is a means of obtaining power to conduct rents.   And since each of the different schools and their levers allows a different kind of rent to be sought for a different class of citizens, we merely fight over the control of these levers for our sects.

    You will not likely hear this explanation elsewhere. You may not understand this explanation.  Because I cannot take the time, sitting in my hotel room, to write a twenty page essay on the topic.  However, it is most likely the only correct analysis of the different economic schools currently available.

    Cheers.
    Curt
    (Thank you for asking me to answer this question. Although I think only the most sophisticated of students will understand it.)

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-a-person-believe-in-Austrian-economics

  • Why Should A Person Believe In Austrian Economics?

    It is not a question of ‘belief’. There are five or six different strategic economic biases in favor of a different set of levers for encouraging an economy. These different levers vary from the fastest and most redistributive and distorting to the slowest, least redistributive and distorting.   They are loosely Modern Monetary (fastest), Monetarism, Fiscal Policy, Industrial policy, and Human Capital policy (slowest – austrianism).

    The other criticisms of the ideas of these schools as consisting of ‘true’ or ‘false’ propositions are absurd. All schools are merely utilitarian, and reward one or more sectors of an economy and one or more social classes, asymmetrically. All have side effects that are positive or negative.   Austrianism trades slower growth for greater personal freedom, greater innovation, smaller boom and bust cycles, with greater development of a natural aristocracy, and natural intertemporal increases in the rate of expansion of the economy between the classes.

    The competition between the schools is merely a preference for one set of EXTERNALITIES over another set of externalities.  With austrianism preferring to cause the lowest redistribution of capital, and the greatest reward, and greatest incentive for entrepreneurship, and the least incentive for political actors, and the greatest diversity of wealth (inequality), in exchange for greater relative wealth for all.  It also has the best system of feedback for the expansion of positive norms – which conservatives feel (correctly) are more important for the expansion of an economy than any other property.

    Claims that austiranism is apodeicitcally certain are specious.  Any system so certain must be substantially complete, and praxeology as it is currently constructed is incomplete enough that it cannot render judgements of certainty except in the most reductio (absurd) cases. (I am trying to fix this problem but it will take me another year or so.)   Instead, praxeological analysis simply exposes the the incentives of individuals and illustrates their rational actions,  IN effect allowing us to judge whether our ascertations about human behavior are true or false.   This leads to exceptional insights about human nature in an economy.  However, a) this does not invalidate the other schools only opens the door for discussions of trade offs.  b) we have been wrong on a number of topics that appear to be rational to individual actors but in practice are false (stickiness of prices, and irrationality of actions.)  

    The central tenet of austiranism, is the business cycle theory, which states that any  intervention in an economy will pervert incentives and information and causes worse busts and booms.  This argument appears to be correct. It is just questionably useful in a democracy where voters will demand action from government.

    A wise man would say, that each of these sets of levers and externalities has value to moving an economy.  But that it appears to be impossible in our democratically structured politcal system, to use each lever for the purposes to which it is suited, and for the benefit of all.  Politics in democracy is a means of obtaining power to conduct rents.   And since each of the different schools and their levers allows a different kind of rent to be sought for a different class of citizens, we merely fight over the control of these levers for our sects.

    You will not likely hear this explanation elsewhere. You may not understand this explanation.  Because I cannot take the time, sitting in my hotel room, to write a twenty page essay on the topic.  However, it is most likely the only correct analysis of the different economic schools currently available.

    Cheers.
    Curt
    (Thank you for asking me to answer this question. Although I think only the most sophisticated of students will understand it.)

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-a-person-believe-in-Austrian-economics

  • STUPID ARTICLE ON KEYNESIAN IDEALISM I am too tired to construct a point-by-poin

    http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/john-quiggin-keynesian-utopiav1/PAINFULLY STUPID ARTICLE ON KEYNESIAN IDEALISM

    I am too tired to construct a point-by-point criticism of John Quiggin’s romantic, idealistic, and unfortunately, logically unsound appeal for a new Keynesian egalitarianism. But it’s begging for that kind of treatment.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-10 23:53:00 UTC