Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • You know, Stephen J. Gould was wrong about everything other than punctuated equi

    You know, Stephen J. Gould was wrong about everything other than punctuated equilibrium. But we are stuck with a lot of popular sentiment because of his success at ‘wrongness’.

    The one question I have yet to wrestle with, is whether intelligence is a deterministic outcome of life over long periods.

    His position was that intelligence was so costly that it’s doubtful. That intelligence is a temporary and unsustainable strategy compared to it’s opposite: bacteria.

    Mine is that it is hard to think of conditions that WOULDN”T generate it, just by watching crows, elephants, octopods and wolves.

    Or it could be for example, that man evolved most by competing with other great apes, and will end up a dead end like the bear.

    The most significant concern that I know of is not the determinism of the evolution of intelligence.

    It’s that the universe is not a gentle place to ‘bake’ a life form in relative safety in the galactic suburbs for five billion years.

    And worse, these periodic extinctions appear to accelerate the development of life toward greater complexity. What if we hadn’t had them? Would each era have ‘peaked’?

    So it just seems to take a very long time to cook intelligence while still not ‘freezing’ it at an equilibrium.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 16:32:00 UTC

  • YES, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO PRESERVE WHAT WE UNDERSTAND: SUPERSTITION. BUT T

    YES, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO PRESERVE WHAT WE UNDERSTAND: SUPERSTITION. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE ALTERNATIVES AREN’T BETTER

    —“As far as I understand it, Joel (and others) [are] very concerned – and rightfully so – that the cultural/social/religious software (myths, traditions, rituals, institutions) remains able to correct the legal/martial/political hardware, similar to making sure that the spirit of the law remains superordinate to the letter of the law. Do you catch my drift?”—Moritz Bierling

    Yeah. Completely. The thing is I want to eradicate fictionalism and even The METHOD of fictionalist arguments. In particular the omnipotence and MANDATORY subservience to gods, vs the immortality and OPTIONAL favor of gods. And the use of conflation. The only way I have seen this done is Myths, legends, heroes, history, literature WITHOUT supernatural (abrahamic) literature. And then many pagan festivals OF THE EARTH AND MAN, and then stoic (action) discipline (self-authoring is peterson’s term). And personal ritual (work or task) for personal things. IN other words, I want to prevent the addiction behavior we call ‘spirituality’ or ‘ecstasy’ and the zealotry and un-reason that results from it. I mean…. that’s why spiritualism/occultism works: it produces an addiction respose to unreason whereas rituals produce addiction response to action and reason. It’s not a theory. It is what it is.

    So that means throwing out abrahamism and all forms of occultism that produce regressive addiction responses.

    The german method(rational philosophy conflating reason and experience) is clearly better than the anglo (law and science ignoring experience), both of which are better than Abrahamic deceptions (religion). The question is, can we avoid the destructive consequences of german conflationism? The only way I have seen (and mankind has tested a lot of options), is to deflate everything, and teach them separately. Because it is the conflation that produces the opportunity for abuse in all forms of fictionalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:38:00 UTC

  • THE END OF LIBERTARIANISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND VIABLE MOVEMENT – PERI

    THE END OF LIBERTARIANISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND VIABLE MOVEMENT – PERIOD

    (Note: ongoing debate with Rik Storey, who is working very hard and I assume honestly to defend the possibility of libertarianism or a libertarian or anarchic order.)

    I am assuming that you’re clueless or frustrated rather than dishonest so I’ll go thru it again.

    1) I move posts to my main feed to (a) insure they cannot be deleted, (b) insure I do not ‘lose’ them in the comments when posting to my web site for future reference, and (c) to increase the number of viewers for the purpose of education of those viewers.

    I have practiced this workflow for years. I have confidence in my arguments so I do not hide them, and I often wonder why people are afraid of exposure. After all, I admitted that you were right about the cause I proposed for libertarian moral intuitions, and I said so, and then given your criticism, I proposed an alternative that I think is even more logical. So I admit my errors with intellectually honest opponents.

    2) I DID rebut your rebuttal by saying ‘Ok, let’s assume autism is an exaggerated masculine brain development but that because it lacks loyalty and hierarchy and possibly purity(Idea) that it is just – as I argued – an underdevelopment, as is all pedomorphic evolution.’

    One could argue that such paedomorphic development is an evolutionary attempt at continued pedomorphism, but that it’s a failure since there is no method of survival except by parasitism (free riding.) In other words, forced adoption of the feminine strategy given insufficient masculine alliances (loyalty/hierarchy).

    (Note that the purity(idea) and disgust(aesthetic) are each masculine and feminine biases to the openness trait. So I am not sure I am conceding the disgust argument, it’s just unnecessary.)

    3) I DID rebut your claims of northern european examples for a number of reasons – although I do admit I left deduction to the audience when I should have laid out the table for the audience:

    (a) borderlands are the only possible conditions under which any form of anarchism can survive

    (b) anarchism unsustainable against ‘state’ (larger) neighbors.

    (c) even german princedoms were a ‘protectorate’ that the church and france and italy agreed upon in order to preserve a wall against the east, or they would not have survived.

    (d) there exist no remaining borderlands that serve as a discounted homesteading operation on behalf of regional nations or empires.

    (e) there exist no incentives by which to produce such a polity in the current order, nor can one survive competition in the current order, except by specialization in warfare using either a universal militia (cheapest possible military) and low taxation, or a specialized warrior caste (monarchy/nobility) and high taxation.

    (f) To construct a survivable polity today requires the production of commons (multipliers).

    (g) To produce multipliers requires empirical not voluntary or preferential production of commons.

    (h) That empirical commons do not require democracy only calculation of that which is necessary to survive competition for territory, polities, institutions,

    (i) That as competition between polities increases into increasing niches the abstractness of property will continue, just as it has from life to property, from property, to commons, from commons to institutional interests, and now from institutional interests to informational interests.

    (j) That a polity does can only choose a strategy that will allow it to survive competition, and as such while sovereignty, rule of law, natural law, universal standing, may serve as the basis for a social order, the production of commons necessary to compete in the market for polities wherein we POSSESS the choice, is determined by competitors in our market (earth), not our choice. So that we choose fascism (generalship), Republicanism (expansion), Classical Liberalism (optimization), and social democracy (hyper-consumption) based upon the competitive needs of the polity.

    (k) that the middle class expansion under the formation of what evolved into the Hansa was possible precisely because (as I stated) that it was so costly to unite territories (produce Merovingian or Frankish homogeneity of law) on the european plain because it was simply too costly to transit, defend, and rule them. Which is why manorialism persisted after the fall of roman order, since it was the only way by which territories could be defended given the limited productivity of the land and the high cost of transportation across it. And the difficulty for rome was that unlike the mediterranean where one only has to protect ships, sea lanes, ports, and markets (Marines), but shipment was cheap (boats), because seas are harder to access and cheaper to defend than is land. But when rome tried to create a land empire she had to carry the burden the inverse: easy access to land by predators but high cost of policing against the high cost of land transport.

    CLOSING

    So, I *DID* refute your arguments: but you either willfully or naturally didn’t grasp them in the level of detail I provided for you (which I will accept is my fault).

    (a) as far as I know, while sovereignty is an evolutionary accelerator, libertarianism like homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.

    (b) as far as I know the only ‘liberty’ that ever existed were at the permission of sovereigns, not the choice of ‘libertarians’.

    (c) as far as I know a libertarian polity is not and cannot form, persist, compete because of the combination of insufficient incentives, insufficient suppression of parasitism, and insufficient ability to compete for territorial and institutional monopoly.

    And as far as I know the matter is closed.

    Although I suspect it will take a few more years before the die hards are de-programmed from the marxist-libertarian (jewish separatist) propaganda put into place by french anarchists, jewish anarchists, mises failed attempt, and rothbard’s failed attempt, and Hoppe’s incomplete attempt to preserve the fallacies through various forms of pilpul (overloading the frail minds of high trust peoples.)

    If you still have any possible method of refuting the argument please try since you DO try, and it is through good attempts at trying, my argument improves in clarity, and we educate the well intentioned fools who think their choice of institutions that through ‘sovereignty’ in fact for the warriors class, will produce some semblance of ‘liberty’ for the tax payers in the merchant classes, and freedom for the tax payers in the working classes, and the occasional insurance for the kin of sovereign, libertarian, freeman, and our dependents.

    The only source of liberty is sovereignty. We can successfully argue that liberty does not exist, except as permission from sovereigns. And any attempt to undermine the sovereigns is in fact (as I argue) simply either pubescent free riding, or adult traitorship.

    And that as I remind people daily, we all negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies without cognition that we do so. And as such we negotiate for dead end reproductive strategies (homosexuality, and libertarianism) or destructive underclass strategies (feminine, socialism, communism), and we negotiate for them either with deflationary truth(aristocracy-pagan), half truth(bourgeoise-christian), or fictionalism(priesthood/public-intellectual/socialist-jewish).

    And these are simply statements that are derived from the structure of arguments. We cannot escape our genes(reproductive strategy), class(truth content), or culture(method of argument).

    Sovereignty truth, bourgeois half-truth, and priestly lies (fictionalism).

    It is what it is man. Sorry. But I killed libertarianism forever. There is only sovereignty – and ‘liberty’ by purchase or permission (grace). Just as one possesses freedom, serfdom, or slavery by the choice of those more sovereign.

    – Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 10:38:00 UTC

  • WE KEEP RETRYING TO RESTATE MONOPOLY CHRISTIANITY – WHEN THAT’s THE PROBLEM IN A

    WE KEEP RETRYING TO RESTATE MONOPOLY CHRISTIANITY – WHEN THAT’s THE PROBLEM IN AND OF ITSELF

    I see is an attempt to state the via-negativa of natural law as a via-positiva moral norm. Which is important, as incentives, because we all like to feel good about ourselves, and congratulate ourselves on moral actions, and create a cycle of positive reinforcement for doing so. So it’s nice to have a via-positiva method of pedagogy because learning the negative (what not to do) does not inspire us with options (opportunities) and it is opportunities for action that we all seek. It is only judges that seek opportunities to prevent and resolve conflicts. Hence science and law on the via-negativa, and history, literature, myth, religion, occult, and pseudoscience and god knows what else on the other end.

    The only thing I know how to do is work back from transcendence and create room for many via-positivas for each ‘class’ of ability or each ‘age’ of maturity, while preserving the via negativa so that every narrative contains a competition. I think this is the problem between modern moral systems of thought and the ancient: being in competition with the gods demons is a good thing. Monopoly via-positiva, no matter how comforting seems to lead to universal disaster no matter where it is applied.

    The only reason china isn’t still superior to the west is that the mongols hit them at just the wrong time. But you can’t say that about any other group in the world. only two got it right. And europeans and chinese both got it right.

    But the ancients got it most right. We are just now, despite our near defeat by the second abrahamiazation of the west under jewish marxism and french postmodernism, restoring the intellectual condition Rome was in in 100AD – without our sciences and technology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 12:07:00 UTC

  • #TheMist Not looking good for Spike. Four episodes in and already falling into t

    #TheMist Not looking good for Spike. Four episodes in and already falling into the Darabont hole. Boring. Boring. Boring. Soap opera.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 01:24:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884221787000713217

  • #TheMist Not looking good for Spike. Four episodes in and already falling into t

    #TheMist Not looking good for Spike. Four episodes in and already falling into the Darabont hole. Boring. Boring. Boring. Soap opera.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 21:24:00 UTC

  • 6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism)

    6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism) in an attempt to justify parasitism on others’ commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:13:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882905240290328576

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

  • “Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subco

    —“Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subconsciously – and their lives are poorer for it.”—

    Women display unconscious bias. Men display unconscious bias. Women display personality trait biases. Mental illness biases. Aesthetic biases. Temporal value biases. Friendship biases. Lower tolerance for diversity in friends. Lower loyalty in business. higher likelihood of being an undesirable manager. More likely to undermine other women in business. As likely as men in sociopathy. Far higher rates of mental illness. Women disapprove of far more than men disapprove of in every walk of life. Women display an array of cognitive biases, and we might venture that the entire world is worse for it. Women display voting biases consistently differently from men. Are not men systematically discriminated against? In what walks of life are men not systematically discriminated against by women? How long does it take to trust someone? How long for a man to trust a man, a man to trust a woman, a woman to trust a woman, and a woman to trust a man? Why are those rates different?

    How about this: we worry about whether things are TRUE and then fix what is wrong with people, rather than pretend that stereotypes are not the most accurate reprsentation of behavioral data on earth?

    True is true is true is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 18:46:00 UTC

  • “Von Mises explained why economics is not explainable by math. Values are ordina

    —“Von Mises explained why economics is not explainable by math. Values are ordinal and not cardinal.”—

    Well, values arent’ even ordinal (as he and Rothbard demonstrate in their of repeated error of reducing choice to price), but values are triangulated among many sets of ordinal preferences. Which is pretty much the lesson of estimation over the past twenty years.

    Or better stated, positional names (numbers) can only represent constant relations. Whereas ordinal position can explain relative position (lists). Whereas triangulated names (graphs), represent current relations.

    This is one of the principle errors in mises’ work. (among many). Just as Mises applies the monopoly of price (commodity trades) to values, Rothbard applies the monopoly of price to ethics. Both of these are simply reductio versions of preserving separatism and avoiding the cost of paying for the institution that makes prices, trade, and ethics possible.

    Our brains sum many possible relative relations in many possible dimensions.

    The problem is that the process is not open to introspection. We have to deflate each dimension to understand our own judgements.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 12:03:00 UTC

  • OBJECTIVISM, LIKE LIBERTARIANISM, IS MERELY MARXISM FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS: PARASI

    OBJECTIVISM, LIKE LIBERTARIANISM, IS MERELY MARXISM FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS: PARASITISM UPON THE COMMONS.

    All, ( h/t: Reece Edward Haynes )

    Um. I will crush a lot of egos and expose a lot of malinvestments if I say that objectivism provides us with moral justification to be skeptical of demands for contributions to the commons. Particularly “positive demands” in payment for “positive freedoms.” In other words “violations of reciprocity, masquerading as demands for reciprocity, by casting preferences or goods as necessities. (You might have to read that a few times before it sinks in.)

    But just like the NAP is a half truth, Objectivism is a half truth. Meaning, how do we demarcate the between productive reciprocity (trades), free riding, parasitism, and theft?

    You see, this is why there are no advanced literatures on Libertarianism, and why libertarianism was intellectually abandoned.

    You can’t control what others will retaliate against you for (the definition of property), and you can’t control when you are free riding on the investments of the commons by others (except to leave the area).

    So it is one thing to say ‘I wish control over my life’ and another to say ‘Here are the limits to the control I have over my life’. Those limits are products of human nature (retaliation against investments in obtaining an interest) or products of consequence (I can no longer remain in this polity without benefitting from the construction of said commons.)

    Crusoe’s Island is, like all of marxism, an elaborate deception. And like the border-regions where states have little influence, or like the ghetto that obtains permission to use its own customary laws internally, Crusoe’s island is surrounded by water that serves as the walls around the ghetto or the borders of neighboring states. Instead, the problem of ethics is not one of choice, but that given an territory normally distributed with other people, how do I cooperate with others so that I have the maximum choice possible given that humans are super-predators, and will only cooperate if it is more beneficial than killing you or enslaving you and taking your things. The answer is total non-parasitism. Not just the parasitism I choose to avoid. But total non parasitism, even if my parasitism is created by my benefit by externality.

    The question is not one of preferential philosophy. It is not one of optimum ethics. It is not something that requires belief. And it isn’t the product of rationalization. It’s a very simple empirical question: what will people not retaliate against me for? What commons do I need to pay for to not force these people to retaliate against me for not paying? How can I create enough economic and social incentives to create an alternative polity if this one is unsuitable? Am I better off in this commons or another?

    Libertarianism was a failed experiment in converting the cult of jewish separatism evolved among pastoral people who never developed the ability to hold territory and the required ethical code of land holders: either a professional warrior caste and the tax structure to fund them, or a universal militia that is self funded and risks personal life and property.

    Just as marxism was a failed experiment in universalizing ingroup equalitarianism, so was Libertarianism. In other words, marxism consists of justifying parasitism upon direct production, and libertarianism consists of justifying parasitism upon the commons – which is, as much as private property, the unique feature of western civilization: we produce high trust as our most valuable common. And that trust is created not only by prohibition on the parasitism upon private production, but by the parasitism upon commons production. So libertarianism is just a middle class application of marxism.

    Objectivism ( skepticism ) as a means of questioning (in the Nietzschean sense) whether moral demands were created in pursuit of positive freedom (parasitism), or demands for dysgenic reproduction (parasitism), or demands for institutionalize rents (parasitism), or malinvestments in a commons that would not produce returns only produce additional rents for some sector (parasitism) – it’s a purely empirical question.

    But like all (“bullshit”) claims that operating by general rules (deontological ethics / rule ethics / black and white decisions so to speak) obviates you from performing the work of investigating whether you are the victim of free riding, rather than a free rider. And I have never, ever, seen any such ethical claim that was other than an attempt to justify free riding under the pretense of moral principle.

    Never.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 12:49:00 UTC