Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • IF WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT LETS HAVE RATIONAL GOVERNMENT “We know personal accou

    IF WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT LETS HAVE RATIONAL GOVERNMENT

    “We know personal accounts work because we’ve seen them work successfully in Chile and Galveston, Texas.

    In 1981, Chileans were given the option of a personal Social Security account. Within a year and a half, a whopping 93% of workers transitioned from the government-run system to personal accounts. In 30 years, because of the power of compound interest, Chileans who opted for personal accounts have retired with two to three times more money than what they would have received from traditional Social Security. Chile also guaranteed that if an individual’s personal account dropped below the minimum amount the government would make up the difference. In 30 years, they have never had to write a single check.

    The experience in Galveston, Texas mirrors that of Chile: A system that transfers control of retirement decisions from bureaucrats to workers ultimately yields much higher returns than traditional Social Security could ever provide.” – Gingrich.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 17:38:00 UTC

  • Institutions That Allow Different Groups To Exchange, Not Pursue Shared Beliefs.

    The Golden Rule is quite simple. But what complexity emerges from it? Property rights are very simple. But what complexity emerges from them? The problem of cooperative politics does not seem simple until we reduce it to these first principles: 1) the dependence by humans on instinct in the face of complexity, and 2) the instinctual and irresolvable conflict in mating strategies between the genders — and the complexity that emerges in society because of that irresolvable conflict. 3) The instinctual, pervasive, and necessary differences in signals between the classes, tribes and races, because of the differences in distribution of ability, exacerbated by a market economy. Yet there is a solution provided by the libertarians: exchange is cooperative, encourages mutual understanding, and produces win-win rather than win-lose outcomes. The English class-based political model was superior to the democratic model for that reason: we now have a winner-take-all society in permanent conflict rather than a system of cooperation between classes with different strategies and no means of resolving that conflict except for class warfare, constant polarization and social disintegration. The solution is to create institutions where classes with different evolutionary strategies can cooperate despite those differences through a process of exchange. Since exchange must be calculable, which in this case means reducible to something so that it can be measured, then we can improve our existing institutions by requiring voluntary exchange between the classes that is reducible to calculative formulae. ie: contracts rather than laws. Data rather than moralistic rationalism. Interest and ownership rather than taxation. It is the process of democratic government as we have constructed it as a winner take all proposition that is the source of both our conflict and social disintegration. And if one is to argue against this strategy, one makes two mistakes. First, that you simply want to win regardless of the wants of others. And as such you expose yourself as impolitic and using the government as a proxy for theft fraud and violence. Second, that the miracle of the west has been its ability to produce of a balace of powers that requires competition and exchange in favor of the masses. And universalism, which the left seeks to embrace, is just the most recent version of the error of simplicity that all other civilizations have fallen into, and has resulted in their impoverishment and suffering. Besides being a vanity, it is a demonstration of a false consensus bias, and ignores the value that comes from competition, and the problems that arise with bureaucracy. The rest of my arguments, which expose and articulate our different strategies, are irrelevant once we create a set of institutions that makes that our differences in strategies something that is to our advantage. We do not need to engage in perpetuating and exacerbating the problem of politics by attempting to get a democratic majority to agree on universal goals. Something which is imposible because of those differences in biological strategies. We need only advocate institutions that allow each group to achieve its goals. Markets are useful in that they produce aggregate beneficial ends for all parties despite differences in preferences, knowledge and ability. And by creating a market for class cooperation we can produce beneficial ends for the aggregate by serving each other rather than destroying each other.

  • Institutions That Allow Different Groups To Exchange, Not Pursue Shared Beliefs.

    The Golden Rule is quite simple. But what complexity emerges from it? Property rights are very simple. But what complexity emerges from them? The problem of cooperative politics does not seem simple until we reduce it to these first principles: 1) the dependence by humans on instinct in the face of complexity, and 2) the instinctual and irresolvable conflict in mating strategies between the genders — and the complexity that emerges in society because of that irresolvable conflict. 3) The instinctual, pervasive, and necessary differences in signals between the classes, tribes and races, because of the differences in distribution of ability, exacerbated by a market economy. Yet there is a solution provided by the libertarians: exchange is cooperative, encourages mutual understanding, and produces win-win rather than win-lose outcomes. The English class-based political model was superior to the democratic model for that reason: we now have a winner-take-all society in permanent conflict rather than a system of cooperation between classes with different strategies and no means of resolving that conflict except for class warfare, constant polarization and social disintegration. The solution is to create institutions where classes with different evolutionary strategies can cooperate despite those differences through a process of exchange. Since exchange must be calculable, which in this case means reducible to something so that it can be measured, then we can improve our existing institutions by requiring voluntary exchange between the classes that is reducible to calculative formulae. ie: contracts rather than laws. Data rather than moralistic rationalism. Interest and ownership rather than taxation. It is the process of democratic government as we have constructed it as a winner take all proposition that is the source of both our conflict and social disintegration. And if one is to argue against this strategy, one makes two mistakes. First, that you simply want to win regardless of the wants of others. And as such you expose yourself as impolitic and using the government as a proxy for theft fraud and violence. Second, that the miracle of the west has been its ability to produce of a balace of powers that requires competition and exchange in favor of the masses. And universalism, which the left seeks to embrace, is just the most recent version of the error of simplicity that all other civilizations have fallen into, and has resulted in their impoverishment and suffering. Besides being a vanity, it is a demonstration of a false consensus bias, and ignores the value that comes from competition, and the problems that arise with bureaucracy. The rest of my arguments, which expose and articulate our different strategies, are irrelevant once we create a set of institutions that makes that our differences in strategies something that is to our advantage. We do not need to engage in perpetuating and exacerbating the problem of politics by attempting to get a democratic majority to agree on universal goals. Something which is imposible because of those differences in biological strategies. We need only advocate institutions that allow each group to achieve its goals. Markets are useful in that they produce aggregate beneficial ends for all parties despite differences in preferences, knowledge and ability. And by creating a market for class cooperation we can produce beneficial ends for the aggregate by serving each other rather than destroying each other.

  • On The Complexity Of Philosophical Arguments, And The Problem Of Conservative An

    On The Complexity Of Philosophical Arguments, And The Problem Of Conservative And Progressive Discourse. http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/29/on-the-complexity-of-philosophical-arguments-and-the-problem-of-conservative-and-progressive-discourse/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 13:18:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/185355365880299520

  • On The Complexity Of Philosophical Arguments, And The Problem Of Conservative And Progressive Discourse.

    [W]estern ethical philosophy consists largely in the analysis of norms for the purpose of conducting a criticism of norms, and hypothesizing the construction of new norms. Political philosophy requires an ethical basis, and therefore depends upon ethical philosophy. Political economy in turn depends upon the implementation of institutions within a political system. Therefore ethics have a universal impact on the economy. All things being equal — which they never are — the only measure of any philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The process of philosophical argument consists not only in articulating the hypothesis itself — most usually by the reordering of categories in order to establish new categories — but in disproving or diminishing the entire field of alternatives. This process of enumeration, or permutation is taxing. Which is why philosophical arguments are long. For a norm to exist, we must be able to sense it. The problem with economic content, is that it exists independently of our senses. Without abstract tools (data and numbers) we cannot perceive its existence any better than we can that of the extra-newtonian universe. Language consists of a graph of interdependent concepts, all of which are reducible to analogies to sensations. So political economy, which is the study of institutions that govern our norms, whether they are formal rules such as laws or informal habits such as manners ethics and morals, is the reordering of categories whose content we cannot perceive using a language that is contradictory to the subject. Conservative political language is allegorical, social, economic and inter-temporal for this reason. Liberal argument consists almost entirely of fixed categories that are the product of human perception, and limited in scope to that perception. This is why economics is hard to talk about in a language other than the movement of curves on graphs rather than expressions of human actions, and why feelings governed by empathic responses and immediate perception are not difficult to express. It is also why liberals cannot understand the language of conservatives, but conservatives can understand the language of liberals: because liberalism is simplistic evolutionary strategy unconcerned with scarcity and conservatism is a complex evolutionary strategy eminently concerned with scarcity. Conservatism is more complex than liberalism in the number of instinctual concepts it attempts to integrate, the time frame it attempts to solve for, and the purpose of the conservatives sentiments is to produce a superior tribe at the lowest cost in resources, and therefore conservatism requires scientific experimentation and observation, while liberalism requires only simplistic emotions, temporal reasoning, consumption, and the propagation of as many offspring as possible. ie: nesting and little more. And in because of this difference, we are unable to conduct political discourse in a rational fashion. [L]ibertarianism has sought to solve this problem: to expose and articulate conservative principles in rational terms using economic principles and language. This is why libertarianism is limited, as was marxism’s dialectical materialism, to a minority of the population: complexity — that is, unless it is expressed as its first principles: the interdependent ethics of property rights and voluntary transfers. With those two first principles, the conservative evolutionary strategy can be produced without complex articulation of imperceptible concepts. Libertarians have attempted to create the simplicity of religion for the purpose of mass propagation of a highly complex evoluitinoay strategy by articulating the first principles: the minimum precepts necessary from which that complexity to emerge. Voluntarism and property are simply an articulation of the golden rule: do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, with specific articulation of the concept of property now that we live in an era where property not relations is our primary source of economic security, as well as our only means of economic production. I have made the argument that these two different political preferences correspond to the different reproductive strategies of males and females: all choices must have a source, and even if choice were random a source can be deduced from similarities in choices. Philosophy does not consist of simple statements. It never has. Whether it be the dialogs of socrates captured by plato, or the convoluted attempts to integrate rationalism in to christianity by Augustine, or the abstract justifications of Kant and Heidegger, or the obtuse madness of Marx, or the historical analysis of Hayek. It consists of counter-intuitive arguments precisely because the value of philosophy is in articulating what is counter intuitive to our perceptions. There is nothing simple or direct about it. It is religion and sensation that lay claim to simplicity, and that is why they are both more successful and widely adopted than is rational philosophy. That is why the world relies upon norms and religion rather than reason, philosophy and empirical data: because it’s cost effective for individuals to do so, and moralistic pedagogy that makes use of analogies to experience and mythology will forever be more successful a social system than rationalism and empiricism which is forbidden by biology to the masses. Because we are vastly unequal in our abilities. And only norms which are widely held, and enforced through conformity, can compensate for the difference in those abilities.

  • On The Complexity Of Philosophical Arguments, And The Problem Of Conservative And Progressive Discourse.

    [W]estern ethical philosophy consists largely in the analysis of norms for the purpose of conducting a criticism of norms, and hypothesizing the construction of new norms. Political philosophy requires an ethical basis, and therefore depends upon ethical philosophy. Political economy in turn depends upon the implementation of institutions within a political system. Therefore ethics have a universal impact on the economy. All things being equal — which they never are — the only measure of any philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The process of philosophical argument consists not only in articulating the hypothesis itself — most usually by the reordering of categories in order to establish new categories — but in disproving or diminishing the entire field of alternatives. This process of enumeration, or permutation is taxing. Which is why philosophical arguments are long. For a norm to exist, we must be able to sense it. The problem with economic content, is that it exists independently of our senses. Without abstract tools (data and numbers) we cannot perceive its existence any better than we can that of the extra-newtonian universe. Language consists of a graph of interdependent concepts, all of which are reducible to analogies to sensations. So political economy, which is the study of institutions that govern our norms, whether they are formal rules such as laws or informal habits such as manners ethics and morals, is the reordering of categories whose content we cannot perceive using a language that is contradictory to the subject. Conservative political language is allegorical, social, economic and inter-temporal for this reason. Liberal argument consists almost entirely of fixed categories that are the product of human perception, and limited in scope to that perception. This is why economics is hard to talk about in a language other than the movement of curves on graphs rather than expressions of human actions, and why feelings governed by empathic responses and immediate perception are not difficult to express. It is also why liberals cannot understand the language of conservatives, but conservatives can understand the language of liberals: because liberalism is simplistic evolutionary strategy unconcerned with scarcity and conservatism is a complex evolutionary strategy eminently concerned with scarcity. Conservatism is more complex than liberalism in the number of instinctual concepts it attempts to integrate, the time frame it attempts to solve for, and the purpose of the conservatives sentiments is to produce a superior tribe at the lowest cost in resources, and therefore conservatism requires scientific experimentation and observation, while liberalism requires only simplistic emotions, temporal reasoning, consumption, and the propagation of as many offspring as possible. ie: nesting and little more. And in because of this difference, we are unable to conduct political discourse in a rational fashion. [L]ibertarianism has sought to solve this problem: to expose and articulate conservative principles in rational terms using economic principles and language. This is why libertarianism is limited, as was marxism’s dialectical materialism, to a minority of the population: complexity — that is, unless it is expressed as its first principles: the interdependent ethics of property rights and voluntary transfers. With those two first principles, the conservative evolutionary strategy can be produced without complex articulation of imperceptible concepts. Libertarians have attempted to create the simplicity of religion for the purpose of mass propagation of a highly complex evoluitinoay strategy by articulating the first principles: the minimum precepts necessary from which that complexity to emerge. Voluntarism and property are simply an articulation of the golden rule: do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, with specific articulation of the concept of property now that we live in an era where property not relations is our primary source of economic security, as well as our only means of economic production. I have made the argument that these two different political preferences correspond to the different reproductive strategies of males and females: all choices must have a source, and even if choice were random a source can be deduced from similarities in choices. Philosophy does not consist of simple statements. It never has. Whether it be the dialogs of socrates captured by plato, or the convoluted attempts to integrate rationalism in to christianity by Augustine, or the abstract justifications of Kant and Heidegger, or the obtuse madness of Marx, or the historical analysis of Hayek. It consists of counter-intuitive arguments precisely because the value of philosophy is in articulating what is counter intuitive to our perceptions. There is nothing simple or direct about it. It is religion and sensation that lay claim to simplicity, and that is why they are both more successful and widely adopted than is rational philosophy. That is why the world relies upon norms and religion rather than reason, philosophy and empirical data: because it’s cost effective for individuals to do so, and moralistic pedagogy that makes use of analogies to experience and mythology will forever be more successful a social system than rationalism and empiricism which is forbidden by biology to the masses. Because we are vastly unequal in our abilities. And only norms which are widely held, and enforced through conformity, can compensate for the difference in those abilities.

  • Um. Liberals might ‘suck’ but that’s not the point I’m making.

    I do not say liberals ‘suck’ I say that they do not comprehend conservatives and that conservative language is to blame. This needs to be fixed if we are to have a democratic polity with rational debate. I have articulated that these differences are nothing more than reproductive strategies writ large. I’ve articulated the difference in complexity in these strategies. And I’ve left the CHOICE UP TO EVERYONE ELSE, that once these facts are known, that we can conduct rational political debate with the full knowledge that we are arguing instincts as well as evolutionary strategies, and that these instincts and strategies present irresolvable conflicts. SInce conflicts are irresolvable, the only solution is compromise, The only compromise that is possible is exchange. The libertarian solution to social conflict is voluntary exchange. That is the line of reasoning. With that line of reasoning, it becomes possible to conduct rational discourse by debating, not ultimate truths – because we now know that they are permanently in conflict – but by negotiating exchanges. In my work I recommend that we improve the institutions of government so that they are not winner-take-all conflicts as we have today, but that the houses of government return to their greek and english class structures which allows cooperation between classes with competing and irreconcilable differences, rather than conduct class warfare because our political system is winner-take-all.

  • Um. Liberals might ‘suck’ but that’s not the point I’m making.

    I do not say liberals ‘suck’ I say that they do not comprehend conservatives and that conservative language is to blame. This needs to be fixed if we are to have a democratic polity with rational debate. I have articulated that these differences are nothing more than reproductive strategies writ large. I’ve articulated the difference in complexity in these strategies. And I’ve left the CHOICE UP TO EVERYONE ELSE, that once these facts are known, that we can conduct rational political debate with the full knowledge that we are arguing instincts as well as evolutionary strategies, and that these instincts and strategies present irresolvable conflicts. SInce conflicts are irresolvable, the only solution is compromise, The only compromise that is possible is exchange. The libertarian solution to social conflict is voluntary exchange. That is the line of reasoning. With that line of reasoning, it becomes possible to conduct rational discourse by debating, not ultimate truths – because we now know that they are permanently in conflict – but by negotiating exchanges. In my work I recommend that we improve the institutions of government so that they are not winner-take-all conflicts as we have today, but that the houses of government return to their greek and english class structures which allows cooperation between classes with competing and irreconcilable differences, rather than conduct class warfare because our political system is winner-take-all.

  • WHY DON”T YOU WRITE MORE SIMPLY? Simplicity comes from the statement of first pr

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/29/on-the-complexity-of-philosophical-arguments-and-the-problem-of-conservative-and-progressive-discourse/CURT, WHY DON”T YOU WRITE MORE SIMPLY?

    Simplicity comes from the statement of first principles. Philosophizing itself is a messy, tedious and abstract process which is an effort to deduce those first principles. And, while most philosophy concerns itself with the infinite regress analysis of social norms — which are things we can perceive with our senses — when we consider the subjects of politics and political economy, which consist entirely of things we cannot perceive with our senses, the complexity of philosophical inquiry into economics and politics becomes nearly as difficult as the process of inquiry into metaphysics. I’m sorry. it’s just a complicated problem by its nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 09:18:00 UTC

  • Escher Triangle: impossible objects

    Escher Triangle: impossible objects.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-28 23:08:00 UTC