Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • WHAT’S A SCHELLING POINT? –“a solution that people will tend to use in the abse

    WHAT’S A SCHELLING POINT?

    –“a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication, because it seems natural, special, or relevant to them. The concept was introduced by the Nobel Memorial Prize-winning American economist Thomas Schelling in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960).[1] In this book (at p. 57), Schelling describes “focal point[s] for each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.” This type of focal point later was named after Schelling. He further explains that such points are highly useful in negotiations, because we cannot completely trust our negotiating partners’ words.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 14:17:00 UTC

  • DEMOTISM – TYRANNY IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE —“Demotism — Rule in the name of

    DEMOTISM – TYRANNY IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

    —“Demotism — Rule in the name of the People. The term has been recently popularized by Mencius Moldbug. Democracy and Communism are seen as two types of Demotism. Reactionaries view Demotism as a form of mob rule, where politicians pander to what they see as the popular will, rather than making their own decisions as independent leaders. A quote of unknown attribution, which first appears in print in 1951, sums up the Reactionary view on Demotism: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” Reactionaries see the Reign of Terror and Stalin’s Purges as classic consequences of Demotism. Though monarchies have historically persecuted religious and ethnic minorities within their borders, none have shed blood on the scale of the French or Russian Revolutions and their subsequent purges. Quoting Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihn: “The renaissance of democracy marked the beginning of the Age of the “G”—guillotines, genocide, gaols, gallows, gas chambers and Gulags.”— by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:26:00 UTC

  • LEFTISM —“Leftism — An ideology that seeks to tear down meritocracy, exception

    LEFTISM

    —“Leftism — An ideology that seeks to tear down meritocracy, exceptionalism and traditional structures so that the lowest common denominator can satiate their feelings of envy and status seeking via pathological altruism using other people’s wealth. (Leftism is an attempt to obtain status without contribution.) A capitalist, leftist society primarily legitimizes accomplishment in only a couple domains — money and hedonism — at the expense of all higher values, including long-term social stability.”—

    —“Instead of encouraging individual accomplishment, Leftism is driven by a “leveling dynamic” summarized by the pithy slogan “everyone gets a trophy”. Social “progress” is defined in terms of maximizing short-term individual hedonism at the expense of general social health. Promoting an “anything goes” values, the end result is a cloud of largely indistinguishable, atomized individuals, rather than anything resembling social coherence or strength. “Culture” is seen as a fluid construct, to be thrown out casually and replaced with a new alternative at the slightest whim. Moral and cultural relativism reigns. No system can be seen as better than any other, lest the proponents of the inferior system take offense.”— by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:19:00 UTC

  • COMPLEMENTARITY —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement on

    COMPLEMENTARITY

    —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement one another as separate parts that together make up a composite whole.” Also called complementarism. Related to the empirical view that men and women have different psychologies and are thus suited to different, complementary roles in society. Both men and women are seen as responsible for contributing “civilizing influence” to society as a whole, beginning with the atomic unit of society, the family. Among Reactionaries, most strains of feminism are seen as exacerbating male-female conflict and mortgaging long-term social vigor for the fleeting rewards of frivolity, hypergamy, and juvenilism. By the same token, misogyny, adultery, domestic abuse, fatherly irresponsibility, and the incessant whining of “men’s rights activists” are frowned upon as encouraging the same conflicts. Reactionaries acknowledge that securing the future depends on raising children in a stable and nurturing environment with a father and mother, and that the selfish desires of parents are secondary to this central goal. Without children, a culture simply self-terminates. Idolizing childlessness is a form of cultural suicide.”—by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:14:00 UTC

  • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It's All Just 'theft'

    [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

      [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

    • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It's All Just 'theft'

      [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

        [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

      • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It’s All Just ‘theft’

        [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

          [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

        • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It’s All Just ‘theft’

          [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

            [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

          • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

            DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

            COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

          • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

            DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

            COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.