Curt Doolittle

Form: Dialogue

  • “What Is Your Endgame?” (Religion)

    —“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer

    I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd. So my objective is to use arguments to search for people in the herd who know that the mythos is false, but want a new herd to join. So I state my arguments and avoid engaging in abrahamic sophisms, and then insult those who make them to deprive them of their attempt to gain confidence and signals from their denials. My endgame is the completion of the transformation of Germanicized christianity to natural law and reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies. Truth is enough. COMMENTS Daniel Roland Anderson This just turned a light on for me. Germanized Christianity (I’m thinking of Kant trying to put logical legs under “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” with the categorical imperative) really got pretty close to something. Reciprocity. Natural Law. I see the idea of reciprocity in Kant’s work—to the extent I can understand it. (The importance Kant places on truth telling, no matter the immediate consequence, looks very familiar.) How about Natural Law? Where do you see this principle most strongly in previous work? Curt Doolittle The common (Natural) law. Daniel Roland Anderson If I had to pick, this is my favorite thing. In law school, property class, I loved the series of cases on possession of property starting with Pierson vs. Post and the fox. Constitutionalists got in my head (my dad brought me up on the constitution) and I second guessed my love for the process of discovering the general law by looking at specific case after case and tweaking and modifying the ruling in connection with previous cases. It feels like home. It was my mother who helped me see that it isn’t judicial discretion that is bad. It’s just that you need to give discretion to the right sort of judge. We haven’t managed that.

  • “What Is Your Endgame?” (Religion)

    —“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer

    I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd. So my objective is to use arguments to search for people in the herd who know that the mythos is false, but want a new herd to join. So I state my arguments and avoid engaging in abrahamic sophisms, and then insult those who make them to deprive them of their attempt to gain confidence and signals from their denials. My endgame is the completion of the transformation of Germanicized christianity to natural law and reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies. Truth is enough. COMMENTS Daniel Roland Anderson This just turned a light on for me. Germanized Christianity (I’m thinking of Kant trying to put logical legs under “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” with the categorical imperative) really got pretty close to something. Reciprocity. Natural Law. I see the idea of reciprocity in Kant’s work—to the extent I can understand it. (The importance Kant places on truth telling, no matter the immediate consequence, looks very familiar.) How about Natural Law? Where do you see this principle most strongly in previous work? Curt Doolittle The common (Natural) law. Daniel Roland Anderson If I had to pick, this is my favorite thing. In law school, property class, I loved the series of cases on possession of property starting with Pierson vs. Post and the fox. Constitutionalists got in my head (my dad brought me up on the constitution) and I second guessed my love for the process of discovering the general law by looking at specific case after case and tweaking and modifying the ruling in connection with previous cases. It feels like home. It was my mother who helped me see that it isn’t judicial discretion that is bad. It’s just that you need to give discretion to the right sort of judge. We haven’t managed that.

  • Curt Doolittle: Jehovah is a demon and the abrahamic religions his design for he

    Curt Doolittle:

    Jehovah is a demon and the abrahamic religions his design for hell on earth.

    James Fox Higgins:

    Says a beneficiary of Christendom.

    Curt Doolittle:

    Says a survivor of the Abrahamic Dark Ages – saved only by the remilitarization of europe under the vikings, the reintroduction of greek and roman thought, the development of printing that broke the church’s monopoly on propaganda, and the revolution in british law and steel.

    There was nothing good in christianity that was not extant in europe as far back as 1500bc, and everything bad in christianity (and all abrahamic religions) was invented by christians.

    Lies are lies are lies.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 07:59:00 UTC

  • FALSE STORY OF ISLAM? A conversation In the context of this book: Did Mohammed E

    http://68.media.tumblr.com/9bd47868450a065d472a80383e80a60a/tumblr_inline_muqgje6p0F1qhtuka.jpgTHE FALSE STORY OF ISLAM?

    A conversation In the context of this book:

    Did Mohammed Exist?

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JBRUKMG/

    The story of Islam is, in essence, the following..

    There was always a strain of Jewish thought more inclined towards Messianism….after all the Jewish holy books proclaim the coming of a Messiah.

    After Jesus’ death, some Jews pronounced him the Messiah.

    The Messians, or Nazarenes, were a Jewish sect. They differed from that group of Jews following Christ who became Christians.

    After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Nazarenes saw it as a sign that they were vindicated.

    The failure of Jews to recognize the Messiah had led to the destruction of the Temple (I believe some Christians believe this also).

    So, like the Christians before them, they left Israel and went North to Bekaa: a Valley in Lebanon. It was here that they began convert Arabs to their Sect.

    This sect differed from mainstream Judaism which rejects prosyletizing.

    The Nazarenes sought to convert / ally with the Arabs to achieve their principal goal – the recapture of the holy city of Jerusalem – which they now believed was in the hands of apostates (mainstream Jews).

    The Nazarenes gave the Arabs their texts (in Aramaic script) and they were successful in converting many of them.

    The Arabs were motivated by the opportunity for conquest and they proceeded to invade Jerusalem.

    After invading Jerusalem these Arabs promptly went to the Temple Mount and began to pray.

    They then initiated construction of a new temple on the ruins of the old temple destroyed 550 years earlier – entirely consistent with the aims of the Nazarenes.

    This was later the very same spot where the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. Their construction was based on dimensions of the old Temple built by Herod.

    Later, there was a falling out between the Arabs and the Nazarenes. The Arabs slaughtered the Nazarene rabbis.

    But those early Nazarene texts became the foundational literature for the Koran.

    Much of the Koran is simply a bad Arab translation of the original Aramaic. I.e. the 72 virgins nonsense is a mistranslation of 72 royal raisins – no joke – white raisins were a specialty reserved for the very rich. Further, the Koran is littered with references to the Nazarenes.

    Muslims simply say that Nazarene = Christian

    yet the Christians never referred to themselves as Nazarenes.

    Further, the Koran writes about early Nazarene rabbis conducting marriage rights for the early Muslims.

    It also states that the Nazarenes are those closest to the Muslims.

    The Koran also has multiple references that are anti-Jewish – in fact the Koran is openly hostile towards the Jewish religion – which is entirely consistent with the feelings the early Nazarenes had towards the mainstream Jews.

    Incidentally, there is not a single reference to Mecca in the Koran – instead the holy place for Muslims is referred to as Bekka – which is where the Nazarenes went into exile.

    We also know from archeology that it is towards Bekka where the early proto-Muslims prayed – because this is where their Mosques were pointed towards.

    Mecca being the holy city is an elaborate fabrication that was added to Islam as a means of solidifying Arabs politically.

    They needed this new religion to be a pro-Arab ideology so a non-Arab city would not do.

    The problem is that the Koran describes Bekka as a flourishing agricultural valley filled with olive groves.

    …Mecca never had olives – ever – not now, not then – we know this from archeological study. It is a desert trading outpost and always was.

    Islam was designed when there was conflict amongst the Arabs on which leader would assume control of the territories that its nomadic warriors had created.

    One Arab contender had claimed that his opponent wasn’t loyal to this new faith with the prophet Mohammed. That Arab lost the battle for succession but the winner saw the political use of the religion and from that arose Islam.

    Mohammad, at the time, was simply an honorific meaning ‘the blessed’ – and was a title used for Jesus by the Nazarenes.

    (CURT: So basically the mediterranean civilizations reached maximum under the roman empire, and made possible the expansions of germans to the north, the slavs and others to the east, and the arabs to the southeast, wand the ‘migration period’ made possible by the technological innovations of the ancient empires is what produced the fall of those empires.

    So the fall of the ancient civilizations is a SINGLE EVENT from all directions, caused by the empowerment of the lesser peoples on her borders. )

    Mohammad later became a name just like ‘Christian’ did.

    I don’t understand how mohammed and the koran are united into a single ‘movement’.

    It’s all interlinked. The Arabs would never have succeeded if not for the fall of Byzantine and Persia due to their wars with one another.

    Had they not succeeded there would have been no Arab conquest and no lands to inherit and no need for a religion to justify political unity over those lands.

    The religion was needed to build an Empire. And unite it while at the same time justifying Arab supremacy.

    Of course the expansion need not stop. Nomadic warriors desired more conquest and Islam gave them justification.

    (CURT: So basically judaism was invented to unite a few small semitic tribes against occupeiers, and this ‘techniology’ of the christians and arabs assisted tribes in uniting against the romans, byzantines, egyptians, and persians. Nomadic warriors live off predation, they don’t need to be funded by an army. )

    That also explains why the Koran is actually so secular. The creation of a caliphate is very explicit.

    The ‘Muslim realm’ is clearly outlined and its expansion encouraged.

    This is all simply politics.

    So what is mohammed doing when he is running around? does it have anything to do with religion or is he just having a war of it and then the religion comes in later? Or does he propose the religion as he’s going around warring?

    Yes, the Arabs saw the value of religion to unite themselves and to ward of internal conflict.

    It was initially very much an Arab endeavour – only later did others join them.

    So they maintained the proselytizing of their Nazarene creators but changed the writings to aid their politics.

    The idea that there was ever a Mohammad in Mecca that then conquered Jerusalem is ridiculous.

    I fact they were not even Muslims at the time. When they entered Jerusalem, the Jews even welcomed them because they believed they may also be Jews – this belief was reinforced when the Arabs prayed on the Temple Mount.

    But Jewish or Nazarene Arabs were not politically useful.

    We have no independent information outside Arab sources that Mohammad ever existed. He is likely a fabrication or a construction out of Jesus and one or more Arabs.

    When the Arabs first conquered Jerusalem, not one Arab, ever, mentioned Mohammed. The Jews and Christians living there were interacting with these invaders and writing about them. Not once did they mention Mohammed – they did mention a prophet but never Mohammed.

    This is consistent with the idea that they were proto-Muslims – somewhere still between the Nazarenes and Islam.

    The Koran, of course, hadn’t yet been written.

    The Koran was written 80 years after Mohammed presumably died – of course, outside the Koran and the Suras we have no evidence that he ever lived. Despite the fact that the Muslims claim his armies conquered Jerusalem.

    It would be like the Macedonians conquering Babylon and the conquerors never mentioning Alexander.

    Further, and I find this fascinating.. take a look at this photo of one of the first coins the Arabs minted after conquering Jerusalem. (link deleted)

    On the one side is a man with a cross (Jesus), on the other is the inscription ‘M’

    ‘M’ for Mohammed: “The Blessed”.

    This is consistent with the Arabs referring to Jesus as ‘the Blessed’.. Mohammed translates to ‘the Blessed’ and was reserved for pious persons. i.e. used by Arab Christians for Jesus.

    So what does mohammed translate to in that period?

    the name I mean.

    …but entirely inconsistent with Islamic theology which forbids the display of the cross and certainly not by Muslims who do not believe Jesus died on the cross.

    However, it is entirely consistent with the Nazarene concept of Jesus being the Messiah.

    Alternatively, means ‘the praised’ or ‘the praiseworthy.’

    again, how early Arab Christians referred to Jesus just as Greek Christians referred to him as Christ.

    Not to suggest that it was exclusively used for Jesus. The coin however makes it obvious that it was used also for him.

    Some say the meaning of ‘Mohammed’ can also be translated as ‘the chosen one’ – which, again, is consistent with Nazarene image of Jesus as the Messiah.

    It is probable that the title was used for Jesus because of the Christian phrase, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    ( CURT: So muhammed is just king arthur? both have likely original individuals of ordinary status, but are conflated with jesus? )

    Right.

    The Nazarenes tried converted some Arabs to their sect around 600 (when the Muslim Mohammed supposedly existed).

    They later went on to invade and capture Jerusalem. Proceeded to build a replica of part of Herod’s temple on top of it – where later Arabs built a Mosque (Al Aqsa) on the same spot – and claimed that the earlier Arabs were, indeed, followers of the Muslim Mohammed.

    After the creation of Islam, the Arabs claimed the word

    Nazarene in the Koran is a reference to the Christians.

    This despite the Muslims being far closer to the Jews in almost every respect.

    However, it becomes obvious what the reference is when considering that the reference is, in fact, to the original Nazarenes not the actual Christians who never used the term Nazarenes to describe themselves.

    So, in a nutshell, Islam is a politically motivated fabrication based on the foundation of a Jewish sect.

    It’s ridiculousness is only matched by its success.

    I don’t believe it could ever have gained any traction outside of the Arab peninsular because of the sheer obviousness of its fabrication.

    Orientalists in the West, using Western historical methods are pulling Islam to pieces. And this is being supported by archeological finds and linguistics (Aramaic) experts.

    The whole thing is a gigantic fraud.

    The arabs have tried to carefully hide their tracks – i.e. burning Nazarene texts and alternative Korans.

    Hence the burning of the libraries as they moved westward.

    (CURT: Thanks. Can I share this?)

    Yes. Anonymously.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 12:16:00 UTC

  • CONVERSATION WITH A MARXIST Communism is impossible because of incentives, calcu

    CONVERSATION WITH A MARXIST

    Communism is impossible because of incentives, calculation, competition, and climbing the dominance hierarchy for status and mates.

    —“in short : Communism is impossible because bananas don’t taste purple”— Marxist

    So no. Because of competition, calculation, and incentives. You cannot eliminate male need to climb the dominance hierarchy. Sorry.

    —“Just throwing around baseless biological assertions. You may be able to lie about philosophy and economics, but biology is on you can’t get.”— Marxist

    So you are saying competition, calculation, incentives to produce, an climing dominance hierarchy among men do not exist, or needn’t exist?

    —“Given you adhere to neoclassical economics it’s not surprising you wouldn’t know the answer to your own question.”— Marxist

    I don’t know what neoclassical means. I know the difference between that which is calculable (individual) and that which is not (common).

    And I know the difference between kin, community, competitor, and enemy, as well as dysgenic and eugenic reproduction.

    And the difference between kin, community, competitor and enemy is determined by reproduction, cooperation, parasite, and predator.

    You see, your entire hierarchy of argument presumes that those who seek parasitism and predation have some ‘value’ or other.

    I start all ethical reasoning with the question of ‘Why don’t I take from, enslave, or kill you and yours?’ Not claims of moral obligation.

    I don’t seek to provide sustenance to parasites at the cost of me and my kin. I seek cooperation of those with whom productivity results.

    A claim that we share some commons, common interest, or moral obligation is simply a lie by which to entreat the simple, weak, and women.

    I make no such claims. I state only that if we cooperate via sovereignty that the meritorious will survive and those lacking merit will die.

    And if that means your death, that is good for mankind.

    At this point in my work there is a great deal I do not know, but precious little that I don’t understand. And economics, I understand.

    I do not seek to rally allies among the simple, weak, and women, against the strong and the male. I seek allies in the transcendence of man through the elimination of parasitism that prevents our transcendence.

    “Via-Negativa.” Eliminate the bad and only good remains Eliminate the parasitic and only the productive remain.

    Kill the enemy

    Punish Parasitism

    Constrain the weak.

    And Transcend Family, Kin, Clan, Tribe and Man.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 10:40:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT: HOW HAVE YOUR VIEWS CHANGED?” —“Hey Curt. Quick question that I wo

    Q&A: “CURT: HOW HAVE YOUR VIEWS CHANGED?”

    —“Hey Curt. Quick question that I would like you to expand upon if you wish. Could you expand upon how your thought process has change or stayed the same from the 80s to the Curt 90s curt to the now curt doolittle?”—

    CURT

    I think my emotional intuition (what I feel good and bad about) has remained fairly constant.

    I still like to screw around as if I’m a teenager. Seriously. I would live in a dorm with college kids if I could.

    I have a lot more knowledge, and am a lot more articulate, and a lot more social than I was. I have a lot more confidence because of knowledge, ability to articulate, and social experience.

    I cared a lot (waaaay toooo much) about getting girls, then a lot about getting successful, then a lot about getting stuff, and now I don’t care about any of those things.

    I relied upon intuition, and experience, and I have abandoned all of that and I rely upon knowledge and reason mostly.

    I cared a lot about proving myself for a variety of childhood reasons. And once I did (or every time I did) I felt better and better. And I have proven myself in every dimension, and now I don’t need to.

    I think that is the major difference in how I feel. What I wish I could tell my young self is that stuff and women don’t matter – do what you love and are good at. The other things come by externality.

    Is that what you mean?

    FRIEND

    Yes for the most part.

    Thank thank you for that well worded and thought out answer.

    Also how has your view of the society changed? Or was it that you viewed society through the lenses of which you just stated

    CURT

    I was a typical classical liberal with faith in democracy and rule of law, and my only belief was that monarchy and a parliament was better than the presidency and a house of commons.

    I had greater faith in mankind – I was more optimistic, because I lacked the experience of the world to know the full range of how people can act.

    I am much more forgiving of people because I understand how diverse our abilities are. And I have a fonder appreciation for the working and middle classes, and I have lost all respect for the talking and educated classes.

    I was part of the generation indoctrinated in to feminism, and I ‘bought it’ and it turns out everything I was told was false.

    I dunno. I have always been a bit ‘afraid’ of people because social anxiety runs in my family. and I have a touch of autism that makes it worse. I’ve always been an outsider because of these things. So I don’t know if my perspective is something that can be learned from.

    I would say my swing has mostly been from confused arrogance, to understanding confidence.

    FRIEND

    wow thank you for that. Great stuff and well thought out and stated as always.

    i think you should share this with your readers if you haven’t already.

    xcheers brotha

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 13:55:00 UTC

  • USA is in First Stages of Hybrid Warfare

    by Adam Voight (had to repeat this) Adam Voight So is the USA in the early stages of “hybrid war”. Right? Curt Doolittle my implied suggestion …. yes Adam Voight Just as the printing press created the modern nation-state, so now we are seeing a similar media-driven change in how politic is done. Curt Doolittle Exactly … and a return to war as usual: factions that the state can no longer and no longer has an interest in controlling. BTW: Iran was the first actor. Russia the second. We ignored Iran because they are ‘them’. But Russians are ‘us’ and that we see as a problem.

  • USA is in First Stages of Hybrid Warfare

    by Adam Voight (had to repeat this) Adam Voight So is the USA in the early stages of “hybrid war”. Right? Curt Doolittle my implied suggestion …. yes Adam Voight Just as the printing press created the modern nation-state, so now we are seeing a similar media-driven change in how politic is done. Curt Doolittle Exactly … and a return to war as usual: factions that the state can no longer and no longer has an interest in controlling. BTW: Iran was the first actor. Russia the second. We ignored Iran because they are ‘them’. But Russians are ‘us’ and that we see as a problem.

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)