Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • If Mathematics Is An Exact Science, Why Are There Assumptions?

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions,

    A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws.

    A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms.

    You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law.

    Once a law is known you may model it with axioms.

    That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence.

    The law of the excluded middle.
    The need for choice.

    Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

    https://www.quora.com/If-mathematics-is-an-exact-science-why-are-there-assumptions

  • What Is The Difference In Thinking Between Milton Friedman And Friedrich Hayek?

    Friedman was a statistician and Hayek a philosopher and historian.
    Hayek explored every field and came to the conclusion that we were having the wrong discussion: the question is simply rule of law under the common law of tort versus discretionary rule of any other kind. Friedman proposed means of producing commons by market means. These works are largely compatible. What’s incompatible is holding a discussion of capitalism vs socialism rather than what they REQUIRE: rule of law vs rule by discretion (not rule of law).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-in-thinking-between-Milton-Friedman-and-Friedrich-Hayek

  • What Do Americans Think Of The Fact That Their Country Is Seen Almost Everywhere On Earth As The Most Arrogant And Bellicose Country Responsible Of The Death Of Millions Of Innocent People?

    WE LOOK AT SUCH PEOPLE AS UNGRATEFUL CHILDREN.

    —-”What do Americans think of the fact that their country is seen almost everywhere on Earth as the most arrogant and bellicose country responsible of the death of millions of innocent people?”—-

    What do Americans think? You mean uneducated or educated, or educated and knowledgeable, or educated, and knowledgeable, and experience americans?

    For the educated, and knowledgeable and experience American, we feel quite rightly that the world is ungrateful for westerners and americans dragging them kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, tyranny. Yes, the european empires tried to drag the world out of a 2000 year dark age and did so profitably. And yes during the world wars, they collapsed and failed to finish the job. And yes, america post-war forced those countries to modernize thesleves rather than directly ruling them as did the colonizers. And yes, communism, socialism, and islamic fundamentalism are all means by which the world resisted being dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, and tyranny.

    And yes, we are trying to stop the spread of regressive islam, the same way stopped the spread of regressive socialism, and the same way we stopped the spread of regressive communism. Unfortunately, we are internally under attack by the newest pseudoscientific pseudo rational religion called ‘postmodernism’. And we are no longer in the economic position to fight internal cults (postmodernism that owns our universities and media and government), nor are we in the position to hold states and people accountable for their rule. Nor arwe we in the position to rule states directly. Because the cost is just too high compared to a century ago.

    The USA has had a simple policy since the end of the world war that is unstated:
    1 – This kind of war must never happen again – mankind will end.
    2 – We can prevent such a war from happening by bringing all people into an interdependent economic world order. Economic cooperation changes ‘conflicts’ from physical to economic, cultural, and informational. It is still conflict, but it is less bad than war.
    3 – People will pursue the interdependent economic world order for the simple reason that they would prefer the comforts of consumer capitalism than to be envious of those that have them.
    4 – We can achieve this by a) preventing expansion of state power, b) directing states to producing human rights (all of which are but property rights), c) advancing democracy so that states will work at human rights (property rights) and then by consequences, join the world economic order out of self interest. d) advancing the self determination of peoples, but retaining borders.

    The problem with this set of goals is that:
    a) most peoples are not demographically advanced enough to adopt consumer capitalism, rule of law, and democracy. Familialism and corruption are too common in the rest of the world, and only northern europeans have succeeded in eliminating it. (Read Fukuyama for some of the reasons why)
    b) americans have said ‘self determination’ and ‘democracy’ (The Carrot) but have not spoken the consequence (The Stick). Which is ‘if you choose poorly we will punish your government, and by consequence punish you.)
    c) Had we completed the colonial ( modernization) project in russia, china, and finally in the middle east, rather than abandoning those peoples, we may have made this process less full of conflict, as did the british in their colonies. but at present we are still struggling with russian, chinese, iranian, pakistani aggression, and unfortunately, north Korea’s threat.

    We have paid a high price in blood and treasure where we could just have easily ruled the world exploitatively and by force – without much effort at all. What other people would do such a thing?

    How many people has Islam killed? How many have Communists Killed? How many have westerners dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty and disease?

    Our entire project is nothing more than trying to prevent another world war in the process of dragging people out of the abrahamic (jewish, christian, muslim->Marxist-Socialist, Postmodernist, fundamentalist) dark age.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-Americans-think-of-the-fact-that-their-country-is-seen-almost-everywhere-on-Earth-as-the-most-arrogant-and-bellicose-country-responsible-of-the-death-of-millions-of-innocent-people

  • What Do Americans Think Of The Fact That Their Country Is Seen Almost Everywhere On Earth As The Most Arrogant And Bellicose Country Responsible Of The Death Of Millions Of Innocent People?

    WE LOOK AT SUCH PEOPLE AS UNGRATEFUL CHILDREN.

    —-”What do Americans think of the fact that their country is seen almost everywhere on Earth as the most arrogant and bellicose country responsible of the death of millions of innocent people?”—-

    What do Americans think? You mean uneducated or educated, or educated and knowledgeable, or educated, and knowledgeable, and experience americans?

    For the educated, and knowledgeable and experience American, we feel quite rightly that the world is ungrateful for westerners and americans dragging them kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, tyranny. Yes, the european empires tried to drag the world out of a 2000 year dark age and did so profitably. And yes during the world wars, they collapsed and failed to finish the job. And yes, america post-war forced those countries to modernize thesleves rather than directly ruling them as did the colonizers. And yes, communism, socialism, and islamic fundamentalism are all means by which the world resisted being dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, and tyranny.

    And yes, we are trying to stop the spread of regressive islam, the same way stopped the spread of regressive socialism, and the same way we stopped the spread of regressive communism. Unfortunately, we are internally under attack by the newest pseudoscientific pseudo rational religion called ‘postmodernism’. And we are no longer in the economic position to fight internal cults (postmodernism that owns our universities and media and government), nor are we in the position to hold states and people accountable for their rule. Nor arwe we in the position to rule states directly. Because the cost is just too high compared to a century ago.

    The USA has had a simple policy since the end of the world war that is unstated:
    1 – This kind of war must never happen again – mankind will end.
    2 – We can prevent such a war from happening by bringing all people into an interdependent economic world order. Economic cooperation changes ‘conflicts’ from physical to economic, cultural, and informational. It is still conflict, but it is less bad than war.
    3 – People will pursue the interdependent economic world order for the simple reason that they would prefer the comforts of consumer capitalism than to be envious of those that have them.
    4 – We can achieve this by a) preventing expansion of state power, b) directing states to producing human rights (all of which are but property rights), c) advancing democracy so that states will work at human rights (property rights) and then by consequences, join the world economic order out of self interest. d) advancing the self determination of peoples, but retaining borders.

    The problem with this set of goals is that:
    a) most peoples are not demographically advanced enough to adopt consumer capitalism, rule of law, and democracy. Familialism and corruption are too common in the rest of the world, and only northern europeans have succeeded in eliminating it. (Read Fukuyama for some of the reasons why)
    b) americans have said ‘self determination’ and ‘democracy’ (The Carrot) but have not spoken the consequence (The Stick). Which is ‘if you choose poorly we will punish your government, and by consequence punish you.)
    c) Had we completed the colonial ( modernization) project in russia, china, and finally in the middle east, rather than abandoning those peoples, we may have made this process less full of conflict, as did the british in their colonies. but at present we are still struggling with russian, chinese, iranian, pakistani aggression, and unfortunately, north Korea’s threat.

    We have paid a high price in blood and treasure where we could just have easily ruled the world exploitatively and by force – without much effort at all. What other people would do such a thing?

    How many people has Islam killed? How many have Communists Killed? How many have westerners dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty and disease?

    Our entire project is nothing more than trying to prevent another world war in the process of dragging people out of the abrahamic (jewish, christian, muslim->Marxist-Socialist, Postmodernist, fundamentalist) dark age.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-Americans-think-of-the-fact-that-their-country-is-seen-almost-everywhere-on-Earth-as-the-most-arrogant-and-bellicose-country-responsible-of-the-death-of-millions-of-innocent-people

  • What Are Good Introductory Books To Study About States, Politics, And Public Laws?

    THE BEST ANSWER I KNOW OF

    The reason we are in this post-enlightenment political and pseudoscientific debacle is that Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche had very different beliefs about human nature – they expressed their own Aristocratic, Middle Class, and Underclass perceptions of man. And today we see Nietzschean(‘Aryan’), Hobbesian (authoritarian), Lockean (libertarian), Rousseauian (Social-Democratic) and Marxist(socialist and communist) SELF PROJECTIONS of the nature of man. When in reality, our physical brains are structured in a spectrum from the very masculine(Aryan), to the very feminine (Marxist), and we are totally incognizant of our cognitive biases.

    So the first problem is understanding MAN before we can judge rule, government, politics, economics, norms, and religion. And that is provided by science. Then we can understand Politics.

    OUR MINDS (PREPARE YOU)
    Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence (The Brain)
    Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (The Mind)
    Simon Baron-Cohen: The Essential Difference (The Cognitive Biases)
    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind (The Moral Intuition)
    Paul Fussell: Class (the class biases)
    Francis Fukuyama: Trust (The Political Objective)

    MAN (POLITICAL ORDERS)
    Matt Ridley: The Red Queen
    Dale Petersen: Demonic Males
    William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization
    Nicholas Wade: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
    Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth
    Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
    Francis Fukuyama: Political Order and Political Decay

    THE UNIQUENESS OF THE WEST (IF YOU ARE INTERESTED)
    Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
    JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    John Keegan: A History Of Warfare
    Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
    Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe
    Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation
    Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization

    THE NATURAL COMMON LAW (Rule of Law)
    Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.
    Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
    Hayek’s: The Constitution of Liberty

    20th CENTURY CONTEXT (WHAT WENT WRONG)
    Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism
    Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-good-introductory-books-to-study-about-states-politics-and-public-laws

  • Should We Try To Encourage The Belief That Black Africans Are The Master Race? They Really Don’t Have A Lot Going For Them, And Life In Africa And Among Black Americans Is So Hard. I Think It Would Be Uplifting For Them.

    There is no master race. There are races that have evolved in different geographies that produced different demands. Each geography produced variations of the human animal suitable to those conditions.

    All people should love their own and take care of their own – self doubt is useless. The greatest inhibitor of black americans is that their culture was just getting started in the south, and the leftists brought them to cities and destroyed that culture. (They were imitating the Soviets. It didn’t work for the soviets, and russians are by and large the same race.)

    There are very minor but very meaningful differences (largely endocrinological) between the races, and those of the african communities in america are earlier and deeper rates of maturity (necessary for evolution in africa), higher extroversion (necessary for warm climate hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers), and lower verbal ‘fascination’ (the opposite of the Ashkenazi for example).

    Northern europeans evolved in a very different environment, and have very different intuitions and norms. ALL GROUPS are better off in homogenous cultures where they reciprocally provide what the group needs. The competition between races is not helpful except among the most highly talented and skilled global elite whose means of survival is purely economic and not at all social. Most of us are, and will always be, social creatures dependent upon one another for not only a division of labor, but a division of understanding and knowledge. Universalism is a fantasy of foolish semi-elites.

    People from the African continent have a number of claims to be proud of:
    1- Physical Superiority (Especially Durability). (True)
    2- Higher in-group sociability (True)
    3- Because of these traits, they are the only people that could survive in Africa, which by all measures is a very hostile environment for human beings.
    4- And because of oceans and deserts, africans were largely cut off from the technological innovations on the northern hemisphere across the eurasian-asian continents

    Love your own. Respect your people for what they have done. Understand that each of us had to evolve in our geography. And give africans time to catch up in institutional and normative technology. It’s taking time. But it’s happening. Not fast enough maybe. But pretty fast by historical standards.

    The fundamental problem for all peoples is the size of the underclass. People in colder climates could not survive winters if they ‘lacked industry and discipline’. People in the far east and the west have killed off the underclasses for thousands of years, either by starvation, disease, war, or ‘hanging’ in large numbers.

    Very few peoples have been able to shrink the size of the underclass: largely westerners and east asians. It should not be a surprise that westerners and east asians have the highest standards of living. Because each person at the bottom , no matter how well intentioned, is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive.

    So the most important thing countries can do is to decrease the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. And now that most of the world has adopted western technologies, it will be increasingly hard for people with large underclasses to ‘carry them’ as the demand for unskilled labor declines. (This is africa’s real problem. the talented classes cannot organize such large numbers of underclasses using capitalism (voluntary organization of production). And even so, it is not universal. (Look at Nigeria, Ghana, and Ethiopia.)

    Africans have plenty to be proud of: they conquered the largest and most difficult continent, despite its terrible hostility to human life, and its near isolation from trade, technology, and information routes – and the use of africa as a source of STRONG DURABLE slave labor by neighboring peoples during the entirety of the agrarian age so dependent upon human labor.

    It pains me every time I have to encourage african self respect, when there are so many other groups on this earth who have so much self respect – yet are so undeserving of it.

    (The greatest danger to africa is Islam, which glorifies the unproductive underclass. It is very seductive, and it has destroyed at least five major civilizations by the same means: expanding the underclasses.)

    https://www.quora.com/Should-we-try-to-encourage-the-belief-that-black-Africans-are-the-master-race-They-really-dont-have-a-lot-going-for-them-and-life-in-Africa-and-among-black-Americans-is-so-hard-I-think-it-would-be-uplifting-for-them

  • Should We Try To Encourage The Belief That Black Africans Are The Master Race? They Really Don’t Have A Lot Going For Them, And Life In Africa And Among Black Americans Is So Hard. I Think It Would Be Uplifting For Them.

    There is no master race. There are races that have evolved in different geographies that produced different demands. Each geography produced variations of the human animal suitable to those conditions.

    All people should love their own and take care of their own – self doubt is useless. The greatest inhibitor of black americans is that their culture was just getting started in the south, and the leftists brought them to cities and destroyed that culture. (They were imitating the Soviets. It didn’t work for the soviets, and russians are by and large the same race.)

    There are very minor but very meaningful differences (largely endocrinological) between the races, and those of the african communities in america are earlier and deeper rates of maturity (necessary for evolution in africa), higher extroversion (necessary for warm climate hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers), and lower verbal ‘fascination’ (the opposite of the Ashkenazi for example).

    Northern europeans evolved in a very different environment, and have very different intuitions and norms. ALL GROUPS are better off in homogenous cultures where they reciprocally provide what the group needs. The competition between races is not helpful except among the most highly talented and skilled global elite whose means of survival is purely economic and not at all social. Most of us are, and will always be, social creatures dependent upon one another for not only a division of labor, but a division of understanding and knowledge. Universalism is a fantasy of foolish semi-elites.

    People from the African continent have a number of claims to be proud of:
    1- Physical Superiority (Especially Durability). (True)
    2- Higher in-group sociability (True)
    3- Because of these traits, they are the only people that could survive in Africa, which by all measures is a very hostile environment for human beings.
    4- And because of oceans and deserts, africans were largely cut off from the technological innovations on the northern hemisphere across the eurasian-asian continents

    Love your own. Respect your people for what they have done. Understand that each of us had to evolve in our geography. And give africans time to catch up in institutional and normative technology. It’s taking time. But it’s happening. Not fast enough maybe. But pretty fast by historical standards.

    The fundamental problem for all peoples is the size of the underclass. People in colder climates could not survive winters if they ‘lacked industry and discipline’. People in the far east and the west have killed off the underclasses for thousands of years, either by starvation, disease, war, or ‘hanging’ in large numbers.

    Very few peoples have been able to shrink the size of the underclass: largely westerners and east asians. It should not be a surprise that westerners and east asians have the highest standards of living. Because each person at the bottom , no matter how well intentioned, is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive.

    So the most important thing countries can do is to decrease the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. And now that most of the world has adopted western technologies, it will be increasingly hard for people with large underclasses to ‘carry them’ as the demand for unskilled labor declines. (This is africa’s real problem. the talented classes cannot organize such large numbers of underclasses using capitalism (voluntary organization of production). And even so, it is not universal. (Look at Nigeria, Ghana, and Ethiopia.)

    Africans have plenty to be proud of: they conquered the largest and most difficult continent, despite its terrible hostility to human life, and its near isolation from trade, technology, and information routes – and the use of africa as a source of STRONG DURABLE slave labor by neighboring peoples during the entirety of the agrarian age so dependent upon human labor.

    It pains me every time I have to encourage african self respect, when there are so many other groups on this earth who have so much self respect – yet are so undeserving of it.

    (The greatest danger to africa is Islam, which glorifies the unproductive underclass. It is very seductive, and it has destroyed at least five major civilizations by the same means: expanding the underclasses.)

    https://www.quora.com/Should-we-try-to-encourage-the-belief-that-black-Africans-are-the-master-race-They-really-dont-have-a-lot-going-for-them-and-life-in-Africa-and-among-black-Americans-is-so-hard-I-think-it-would-be-uplifting-for-them

  • Why Did It Take Humanity So Long To Invent Science?

    Science uses measurement (a form of competition, believe it or not) to extend perception, and eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. In other words, science is the means by which we seek to speak truthfully.

    Science evolved out of european common law of torts (resolution of disputes over property between equals), which led from the jury, to the ‘thang’ to the ‘senate’. This led to ‘scientific’ debate. This led to reason. Reason led to aristotelian pre-science. (He studied constitutions). Bacon was a lawyer. That law led to empiricism. Empiricism led to science.

    Law under competition (western law) led to science.

    Language evolved to negotiate, not to speak truthfully.

    Religion hindered law. (Religion is an attempt to state wisdom literature is true)

    Only the west invented it. You can see the chinese come close. No one else comes close. Even the persians were using what we call science for superstitious purposes.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-take-humanity-so-long-to-invent-science

  • Why Did It Take Humanity So Long To Invent Science?

    Science uses measurement (a form of competition, believe it or not) to extend perception, and eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. In other words, science is the means by which we seek to speak truthfully.

    Science evolved out of european common law of torts (resolution of disputes over property between equals), which led from the jury, to the ‘thang’ to the ‘senate’. This led to ‘scientific’ debate. This led to reason. Reason led to aristotelian pre-science. (He studied constitutions). Bacon was a lawyer. That law led to empiricism. Empiricism led to science.

    Law under competition (western law) led to science.

    Language evolved to negotiate, not to speak truthfully.

    Religion hindered law. (Religion is an attempt to state wisdom literature is true)

    Only the west invented it. You can see the chinese come close. No one else comes close. Even the persians were using what we call science for superstitious purposes.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-take-humanity-so-long-to-invent-science

  • Is Warren Buffett Considered Republican Or Democrat? Why?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

    Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

    By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

    Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

    So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Warren-Buffett-considered-republican-or-democrat-Why