Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt

    Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.

    Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Libertines And SJW’s Alike

    Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology. Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders. Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage. Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism. private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups. There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty. We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property. Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it. Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law. And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.

  • Libertines And SJW’s Alike

    Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology. Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders. Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage. Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism. private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups. There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty. We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property. Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it. Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law. And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.

  • Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.

    —“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.

    —“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle

    Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle

    Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • “I hoped to help … But I see that you are in love. Take care.”— Ayelam Valen

    —“I hoped to help … But I see that you are in love. Take care.”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    ( The most gracious takedown I’ve heard in a long time. lol )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-01 02:30:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 02:13:00 UTC

  • sorry. Misunderstood the question. MOST Catholics below hanjal line and were fro

    sorry. Misunderstood the question. MOST Catholics below hanjal line and were from lower classes. But Germanic is Germanic.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 08:10:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781405775738638336

    Reply addressees: @Ava1683

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Glanceaustere

    @curtdoolittle Liecehnstein, etc., where would they be in your trust system? Would they be between medium trust Catholic familism and

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425