Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MONARCHY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY vs. DEMOCRACY Assuming rule of law exists (

    MONARCHY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY vs. DEMOCRACY

    Assuming rule of law exists (european customary law of sovereignty and tort):

    In a constitutional monarchy either the monarchy asks for approval from the people directly or from their representatives, or the people ask approval of the monarchy.

    However, without approval one direction or the other you have Democracy (population) or Prussianism (monarchy) – not any form of monarchy no matter what pretenses you make.

    So, a monarchy may include democratic and republican participation, but a democracy cannot contain a monarchy.

    The principle reason being where the decision of last resort rests: with the house or with the monarch.

    As I undrestand it, in order to retain rule of law, where the monarchy is the judge of last resort, the monarchy must retain right of veto (dissent).

    If a monarchy is successful in manufacturing rule of law it should be possible for the people to produce houses of governance.

    This is simply a utilitarian solution, since there is little if any evidence that democracy does anything other than consume accumulated capital at the expense of those who created it, and those who would have inherited it, and the goods that come from its preservation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 12:33:00 UTC

  • REGARDING PHILOSOPHY I dunno. As far as I know, one can practice a limited spect

    REGARDING PHILOSOPHY

    I dunno.

    As far as I know, one can practice a limited spectrum of methods of producing paradigms (networks) of decidability: occult < theology < literature < philosophy <- common law -> science > mathematics > logic.

    We do possess three faculties: intuition-emotion, reason, and physical sensation. And we depend more or less on each of those faculties in each, with law depending upon all, and others depending upon less so.

    It’s not unreasonable that some would seek to rely more on intuition, more on reason, or more on physical sense and perception, if for no other reason than intuition is cheap, reason is more difficult and therefore costly, and physical operations are the most difficult and costly of all. But conversely, intuition > reason, and > physical demonstration are decreasingly prone to error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    I consider this a scientific, logical, and legal statement, because it has no room for, or tolerance for untestifiable fictionalisms (irreciprocity, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fiction, and the combination of those in mythology, theology and the occult.) And conversely it demands testifiability, reciprocity, existential possibility, rationality (cost), consistency, correspondence, and coherence.

    Common (traditional) Law, reasoning, and observation within that law existed before all other disciplines and exists even where there are no other disciplines, and as far as I know of all other disciplines are derivatives of the rules of resolution of conflict that we call law.

    The origin of western philosophy was largely in the circumvention of traditional law, in an effort to reform it to match the rates of innovation and changes in the scale of cooperation – in particular the learnings of mathematics.

    It’s certainly true that there has been a conflict between law, and martial authority, and law and religious authority, and even in the modern world, between law and commercial authority, or law and popular authority.

    And this is because coercion by various fictionalisms (pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, supernatural) seek to deceive or coerce others such that they can violate the law that requires the rational, reciprocal, logical, scientific, and existential that can be testified to.

    So because philosophy is not as strong (decidable) as law, science, mathematics, because it’s scope is smaller, but does accommodate preference and good rather than decidability(truth).

    So I consider philosophy a discipline for violating law (reciprocity, volition, rational choice, costs), science, logic, and mathematics, – all of which that evolved because it was cheaper than experimentation (science).

    Or stated more simply, between Saul, Augustine, Plato, And Aristotle, Aristotle’s science won:

    Saul(Supernatural) < Augustine(Theological) < Plato(Ideal) < Aristotle(Real Empirical)

    And science won because it is more demanding of decidability – but was delayed because it’s more expensive. Philosophy was a cheap substitute prior to the development of science. And all disciplines are now subsets of science not philosophy.

    I work in the science of natural law (testimony and decidability). I only use the term ‘philosopher’ to directly compete with the discipline – which I consider, like theology, dead, and or fraud.

    (Hopefully that will stimulate a conversation). 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 09:46:00 UTC

  • —-”Is Marxism the opiate of the envious?”—-

      1. Marxism (Boasianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School) consists of a **pseudoscientific** revolt against aristocratic european civilization’s sovereignty, reason, markets, and meritocracy, and is merely a restatement of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic **supernatural** REVOLT against the great aristocratic civilizations of the ancient world – this time with a false promise of prosperity in search for power, just as in the ancient world, a false promise of life after death or paradise in search for power. 2. Postmodernism is a **pseudo-rational** restatement of the Marxist (Boasian, Marxist, Freudian, Frankfurt School) REVOLT against reason markets, meritocracy and eugenics that result from that merit. This time abandoning both the supernatural, the pseudoscientific, and merely engaging in gossip, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disapproval, in the pursuit of power to resist meritocracy (eugenics) 3. So whether Semitic Abrahamic **Supernatural** Religion, Marxist **pseudoscientific** reformation of abrahamic religion, or Postmodern pseudo-rational justification is used, the same argumentative **sophisms **of **justificationary Pilpul**, and **critical Critique **are used to circumvent reason, appeal to intuition. 4. Why? We are, because of our genetics, and the intuitions that result from our genetics, of differing interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. This market value is generally categorized as ‘class’. We do, because of genetics, physically possess physical brain and physical chemical intuitions that reflect our class and our genders. And just as the female reproductive strategy (herds) evolved to persist her genes regardless of the merit of her offspring, and men evolved to persist their genes (packs) by the merit of himself and his male kin, classes evolved to express either the feminine dysgenic or male eugenic group strategies. Our differences in moral intuitions are the result of these axis: gender cognitive bias, and class cognitive bias, and the degree of group neoteny that evolved in our relative geographies. 5. So to some degree just as religion is an opiate of the lower classes, philosophy provides an opiate of the middle classes, and pseudoscience the upper middle classes – the upper classes need no opiate other than the rewards of their market position (desirability). Why? we want hope or promise of raising our interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. Because after all – that is what drives reproduction, and what drives all our behavior. 6. The underclasses are not oppressed. They are just six times as bad for the polity as every good person is good for it. Markets cannot lie. They contain lottery effects. And the lottery effect provides us with the incentives (hope) just as religion, philosophy, and pseudoscience provide us with hope. Hope that we will obtain the benefits of being of higher market value than we are. In other words: status rules us. 7. The duration of a Democracy is determined by the time it takes to redistribute, and spend down a windfall, from war, conquest, technical innovation, or accident of nature. We are rapidly running out of the industrial (petroleum) windfall, just as Athens ran out of it’s silver mine. 8. A mixed economy ruled by an authoritarian, an oligarchy, or a ‘party’ – differing only in scale – is the only survivable, with fascism necessary in war, and the luxury of social democracy possible under windfalls.

  • —-”Is Marxism the opiate of the envious?”—-

      1. Marxism (Boasianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School) consists of a **pseudoscientific** revolt against aristocratic european civilization’s sovereignty, reason, markets, and meritocracy, and is merely a restatement of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic **supernatural** REVOLT against the great aristocratic civilizations of the ancient world – this time with a false promise of prosperity in search for power, just as in the ancient world, a false promise of life after death or paradise in search for power. 2. Postmodernism is a **pseudo-rational** restatement of the Marxist (Boasian, Marxist, Freudian, Frankfurt School) REVOLT against reason markets, meritocracy and eugenics that result from that merit. This time abandoning both the supernatural, the pseudoscientific, and merely engaging in gossip, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disapproval, in the pursuit of power to resist meritocracy (eugenics) 3. So whether Semitic Abrahamic **Supernatural** Religion, Marxist **pseudoscientific** reformation of abrahamic religion, or Postmodern pseudo-rational justification is used, the same argumentative **sophisms **of **justificationary Pilpul**, and **critical Critique **are used to circumvent reason, appeal to intuition. 4. Why? We are, because of our genetics, and the intuitions that result from our genetics, of differing interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. This market value is generally categorized as ‘class’. We do, because of genetics, physically possess physical brain and physical chemical intuitions that reflect our class and our genders. And just as the female reproductive strategy (herds) evolved to persist her genes regardless of the merit of her offspring, and men evolved to persist their genes (packs) by the merit of himself and his male kin, classes evolved to express either the feminine dysgenic or male eugenic group strategies. Our differences in moral intuitions are the result of these axis: gender cognitive bias, and class cognitive bias, and the degree of group neoteny that evolved in our relative geographies. 5. So to some degree just as religion is an opiate of the lower classes, philosophy provides an opiate of the middle classes, and pseudoscience the upper middle classes – the upper classes need no opiate other than the rewards of their market position (desirability). Why? we want hope or promise of raising our interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. Because after all – that is what drives reproduction, and what drives all our behavior. 6. The underclasses are not oppressed. They are just six times as bad for the polity as every good person is good for it. Markets cannot lie. They contain lottery effects. And the lottery effect provides us with the incentives (hope) just as religion, philosophy, and pseudoscience provide us with hope. Hope that we will obtain the benefits of being of higher market value than we are. In other words: status rules us. 7. The duration of a Democracy is determined by the time it takes to redistribute, and spend down a windfall, from war, conquest, technical innovation, or accident of nature. We are rapidly running out of the industrial (petroleum) windfall, just as Athens ran out of it’s silver mine. 8. A mixed economy ruled by an authoritarian, an oligarchy, or a ‘party’ – differing only in scale – is the only survivable, with fascism necessary in war, and the luxury of social democracy possible under windfalls.

  • —“Men and women are dividing duties”—

    —“Men and women are dividing duties”— Um. Women divorce men who split duties. Women demonstrate lower sexual interest in men who split duties. Women have little need for the economic returns of a man if they can obtain child support without providing nesting, care, and sex for a man. Men are more varied than women, and while most women are desirable to SOME man, approximately a third of men are not desirable for ANY woman. This reflects ancestral rates of reproduction. Under monogamy, the best women do not need to settle and can construct a long term marriage. However, under serial marriage (or polygyny for that matter) women can mate with better genes than they can ‘afford’ due to men’s lower demands – especially when under the influence. And so we are seeing a return to the historical difference between upper class (propertied) marriages, and underclass (unpropertied) serial monogamy. The primary difficulty being that single mothers produce vast numbers of disastrous children. Why? over-investment in one or two children, and the tendency not to obtain a mate, whereas single fathers nearly always obtain a new mate, providing a better household. It’s strange but women apparently evolved to care for five or six children, and do not reach cognitive load (work that balances their sensory and intuitionistic sensitivities) until they have at least three. This is understudied but hopefully we will change that shortly.

  • —“Men and women are dividing duties”—

    —“Men and women are dividing duties”— Um. Women divorce men who split duties. Women demonstrate lower sexual interest in men who split duties. Women have little need for the economic returns of a man if they can obtain child support without providing nesting, care, and sex for a man. Men are more varied than women, and while most women are desirable to SOME man, approximately a third of men are not desirable for ANY woman. This reflects ancestral rates of reproduction. Under monogamy, the best women do not need to settle and can construct a long term marriage. However, under serial marriage (or polygyny for that matter) women can mate with better genes than they can ‘afford’ due to men’s lower demands – especially when under the influence. And so we are seeing a return to the historical difference between upper class (propertied) marriages, and underclass (unpropertied) serial monogamy. The primary difficulty being that single mothers produce vast numbers of disastrous children. Why? over-investment in one or two children, and the tendency not to obtain a mate, whereas single fathers nearly always obtain a new mate, providing a better household. It’s strange but women apparently evolved to care for five or six children, and do not reach cognitive load (work that balances their sensory and intuitionistic sensitivities) until they have at least three. This is understudied but hopefully we will change that shortly.

  • “Men and women are dividing duties”— Um. Women divorce men who split duties. W

    —“Men and women are dividing duties”—

    Um. Women divorce men who split duties. Women demonstrate lower sexual interest in men who split duties. Women have little need for the economic returns of a man if they can obtain child support without providing nesting, care, and sex for a man.

    Men are more varied than women, and while most women are desirable to SOME man, approximately a third of men are not desirable for ANY woman. This reflects ancestral rates of reproduction. Under monogamy, the best women do not need to settle and can construct a long term marriage. However, under serial marriage (or polygyny for that matter) women can mate with better genes than they can ‘afford’ due to men’s lower demands – especially when under the influence.

    And so we are seeing a return to the historical difference between upper class (propertied) marriages, and underclass (unpropertied) serial monogamy. The primary difficulty being that single mothers produce vast numbers of disastrous children.

    Why? over-investment in one or two children, and the tendency not to obtain a mate, whereas single fathers nearly always obtain a new mate, providing a better household.

    It’s strange but women apparently evolved to care for five or six children, and do not reach cognitive load (work that balances their sensory and intuitionistic sensitivities) until they have at least three. This is understudied but hopefully we will change that shortly.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-10 12:36:00 UTC

  • You Can’t Get Around the Problem.

    Rule of Law, or Social Democracy, or National Socialism, or World Communism. Um. Labor costs are regional and national, while market prices are global. With ‘free trade’, arbitrage means that we seek lower prices and higher consumption at the cost of redistribution of employment from advanced to advancing countries. How you interpret that fact is determined by whether you seek to bring everyone on earth to an average at the expense of those who are already prosperous, or whether you seek to maintain income equality within your polity for the purpose of preserving harmony. National Rule of Law, not National Socialism. They result in the same thing by use of full accounting under rule of law.

  • You Can’t Get Around the Problem.

    Rule of Law, or Social Democracy, or National Socialism, or World Communism. Um. Labor costs are regional and national, while market prices are global. With ‘free trade’, arbitrage means that we seek lower prices and higher consumption at the cost of redistribution of employment from advanced to advancing countries. How you interpret that fact is determined by whether you seek to bring everyone on earth to an average at the expense of those who are already prosperous, or whether you seek to maintain income equality within your polity for the purpose of preserving harmony. National Rule of Law, not National Socialism. They result in the same thing by use of full accounting under rule of law.

  • YOU CAN”T GET AROUND THE PROBLEM. Rule of Law, or Social Democracy, or National

    YOU CAN”T GET AROUND THE PROBLEM.

    Rule of Law, or Social Democracy, or National Socialism, or World Communism.

    Um. Labor costs are regional and national, while market prices are global. With ‘free trade’, arbitrage means that we seek lower prices and higher consumption at the cost of redistribution of employment from advanced to advancing countries.

    How you interpret that fact is determined by whether you seek to bring everyone on earth to an average at the expense of those who are already prosperous, or whether you seek to maintain income equality within your polity for the purpose of preserving harmony.

    National Rule of Law, not National Socialism. They result in the same thing by use of full accounting under rule of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 15:52:00 UTC