Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER: The problem is not DEMOCRA

    IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

    1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

    And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

    3) MONOPOLY MAJORITARIANISM. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

    Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:12:00 UTC

  • MORAL AI THE SAME WAY WE PRODUCE MORAL MAN Neural Network based AI performs what

    MORAL AI THE SAME WAY WE PRODUCE MORAL MAN

    Neural Network based AI performs what we would call free-association, not reason. These AI’s use arbitrarily (or intentionally) set ‘weights’ or ‘points’.

    Free-Association -> Solution: Idea ( candidacy or not )

    …. Rational Wayfinding -> Solution:Hypothesis (possibility or not)

    …. …. Ratio-Empirical Criticism -> Solution:Theory (survival or not)

    …. …. …. Market Survival -> Solution:Law (survival or not)

    But there is no defense against programmer error(competence), or intent (malice).

    We can solve the problem of ‘dangerous’ AI by three incrementally rigorous methods that we already use in our own thoughts to regulate human thought and behavior.

    1) The neural network uses property, inventory, and costs rather than points and knowledge.

    2) Once a solution is identified by the network we try to construct a route to the solution “wayfinding” through a set of operations on property.

    3) We use both in process and wayfinding approaches.

    This is what the human mind does. Both.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 18:35:00 UTC

  • THE LENS OF IQ G is an average of the two abilities (of perhaps eighty) of the h

    THE LENS OF IQ

    G is an average of the two abilities (of perhaps eighty) of the human mind that are the most correspondent with demonstrated life long ability to learn and adapt quickly. All other abilities scale in correspondence with those two. It is arguable that we should split this number: verbal(describing)/spatial(modeling) to gain a higher degree of precision. And it is arguable that we should round down to the nearest 5 points, but there is NO DEBATE in the scientific community over the correspondence of G with the rate of learning and adaptability demonstrated in reality. EXCEPT that personality defects, and life’s shocks, can further diminish the potential. And accumulating general knowledge and stoic discipline will allow you to maximize your potential. But the fact remains, that at every 15 points of difference we are very different ‘breeds’ of human. And at 30 points of difference we are analogous to different species.

    Conversely, the problem facing those with lesser abilities, is the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which people with lower intelligence demonstrably overestimate their abilities. While people with higher intelligence, encountering the same problem, will question their abilities.

    So, I would not argue with a baboon, any more than I would argue anything of substance with someone with a <100 IQ. It’s not so much that they’re stupid but they demonstrate an absurd overconfidence in their understanding and opinion that insulates them in a bubble of inescapable ignorance.

    THE MODEL

    I tend to look at IQ as the center of a lens of capability that slides up and down the IQ index. This lens is frosted around the edges. if others are too relatively dim it is hard to understand them. If others are too relatively abstract it is hard to understand them. But in general we can see seven points either direction pretty clearly, and 15 points either direction if we work at it. But beyond that it’s hard to make out more than vague shapes.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 10:14:00 UTC

  • THEIR SCHOOL, OUR LUDUS A professor must work to justify expensive fees, to teac

    THEIR SCHOOL, OUR LUDUS

    A professor must work to justify expensive fees, to teach something that is of little value, to people who lack interest, most of whom don’t have ability, and none of whom want to invest the effort to master it, for an indulgence (diploma) that conveys endurance not competence.

    I get to teach something of profound value, to people who are interested, and who have the ability, and are willing to invest the effort to master it, in exchange for reciprocal learning, and the possibility of building a better world together.

    I teach every day. I don’t ‘grade’ students, I encourage, advise, and criticize (in the positive sense) their thoughts. And I get to discipline (trash) malcontents until they leave the classroom. We don’t have a schedule to meet. We don’t have to learn at the same rates. We just improve our fitness and technique until we can construct our arguments, demonstrate our understanding, and solve the substantive problems we face.

    There is no substitute for listening to discussion and debate, trying to survive debates, and if possible someday emerging as a champion of debates – on any subject.

    Together we run a Ludus: a school for gladiators.

    And our subject is Aryanism: the transcendence of mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 09:48:00 UTC

  • Prosecutor vs Educator – But Otherwise Its The Same Message

      Stephan Molyneux won’t engage me. It’s a loss for the movement really. The contrast would be brilliant. SECRET: I might be an effete, but I know who I am marketing to: the same as Trump-the people willing to fight. Stephan argues MORAL CHOICE, and I argue LEGAL LIMITS. His Golden rule and my Silver. But it’s the same msg. It’s sometimes hard to grasp the difference between creating MORAL POSSIBILITY and limiting IMMORAL ACTIONS. Western Civilization does not engage in conflation, so RELIGION, MORALITY, and LAW are different disciplines. Stephan practices Moral Philosophy,and I Practice Moral LAW. (Positive advocacy vs Negative threat). Same Msg We require BOTH. Positive advocacy for the purpose of pedagogy, and negative prohibition for limits. This is why Stephan’s work and mine overlap so much, but ‘sound’ different. He’s a teacher, I’m a prosecutor. And if you understand scientific epistemology that’s how it functions: positive THEORY and negative TEST. Stephan made a career out of educating. I’ve made a body of law, and I teach prosecutors. It’s that simple. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Prosecutor vs Educator – But Otherwise Its The Same Message

      Stephan Molyneux won’t engage me. It’s a loss for the movement really. The contrast would be brilliant. SECRET: I might be an effete, but I know who I am marketing to: the same as Trump-the people willing to fight. Stephan argues MORAL CHOICE, and I argue LEGAL LIMITS. His Golden rule and my Silver. But it’s the same msg. It’s sometimes hard to grasp the difference between creating MORAL POSSIBILITY and limiting IMMORAL ACTIONS. Western Civilization does not engage in conflation, so RELIGION, MORALITY, and LAW are different disciplines. Stephan practices Moral Philosophy,and I Practice Moral LAW. (Positive advocacy vs Negative threat). Same Msg We require BOTH. Positive advocacy for the purpose of pedagogy, and negative prohibition for limits. This is why Stephan’s work and mine overlap so much, but ‘sound’ different. He’s a teacher, I’m a prosecutor. And if you understand scientific epistemology that’s how it functions: positive THEORY and negative TEST. Stephan made a career out of educating. I’ve made a body of law, and I teach prosecutors. It’s that simple. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Reformation of Education

    Roughly speaking we spend 10K per student per year, which varies from a low of 7k in Utah to a high of 20k in NY, plus an additional 2k per student at the federal level’s department of education. I don’t know the state overhead numbers. As far as I can tell there is zero value provided by every single individual above the practicing teacher. As far as I can tell the entire academic establishment teaches pseudoscience in order to justify greater expenditures and higher salaries – since teaching is a pretty simple interpersonal craft more dependent upon the individual teacher’s character and abilities than any particular methodology. Teaching no subject is difficult if taught in the context of the historical narrative, and applied through repetition with natural language. My suggestion would be to do away with all administration in the country entirely, require teachers to form sub-s corporations holding any physical plant (school) as an asset, and require each of them to carry insurance-of-performance like lawyers and accountants, series seven holders, and bonded professionals. Deliver purchasing power parity vouchers to each student depending upon his region. Allow students and parents to shop for schools and entrepreneurs to form new ones. This will drive students into schools that offer different teaching environments for different temperaments and in combination will restore normative behavior to the population and commons. An homogenous germanic protestant middle class population is far different from a diverse population from different gene pools that mature at different rates to different depths. Humans do not ‘grow’ a the same rate in all senses. Nor are we endowed with equal abilities and challenges. And each must be taught as his biology allows. REALLOCATION OF TIME TO HOME AND COMMONS There is no evidence that education of more than two to three hours a day produces any value whatsoever. There is substantial evidence that education produces infantilization and ignorance. And that a few hours a day in the late morning, and then continuous exposure to life, family, friends, commons, business and industry provides higher returns in maturity and abilities. Returning children to the labor force is more important than adding mothers to it. We have to understand that vast numbers of women entering the workplace was not a net add. It merely reduced replacment rates, pushed men in to higher risk jobs at lower pay, forced the west to import underclasses, and force us to lie about equality of people in traits and abilities, and the only net gain was letting one generation retire early, instead of maintaining part time, light burdent work that kept them mobile, healthy, and engaged in life. CURRICULUM I’ve written elsewhere on cirriculum extensively, largely to eliminate pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, propaganda, and outright lies, and to return to evidentiary knoweldge. The net is that we teach people poorly and pseudoscientifically, when the process of education is actually quite trivial. Needless to say teachiung is a craft and teachers have talents for it or they don’t. But the process is very simple: narrative for context, basic operations, higher explanations and patterns, and repetition of all using natural lanaguage.  In the enlightenment and especially after 1920 there appears to have been a rapid expansion of the ‘crafts’ claiming academic pretenses, and incorporating pseudoscientific language into all the ‘crafts’.  Many of these ‘crafts’ are in the ‘liberal arts’ and ‘social sciences’ including education. But tehy are mere crafts consisting of a very small number of basic operations, the most important of which is subjective analysis of mental states, and the attempt to communicate how to extend that mental state. This is not a science. It is a hand-craft that can be raised to an art.   Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Reformation of Education

    Roughly speaking we spend 10K per student per year, which varies from a low of 7k in Utah to a high of 20k in NY, plus an additional 2k per student at the federal level’s department of education. I don’t know the state overhead numbers. As far as I can tell there is zero value provided by every single individual above the practicing teacher. As far as I can tell the entire academic establishment teaches pseudoscience in order to justify greater expenditures and higher salaries – since teaching is a pretty simple interpersonal craft more dependent upon the individual teacher’s character and abilities than any particular methodology. Teaching no subject is difficult if taught in the context of the historical narrative, and applied through repetition with natural language. My suggestion would be to do away with all administration in the country entirely, require teachers to form sub-s corporations holding any physical plant (school) as an asset, and require each of them to carry insurance-of-performance like lawyers and accountants, series seven holders, and bonded professionals. Deliver purchasing power parity vouchers to each student depending upon his region. Allow students and parents to shop for schools and entrepreneurs to form new ones. This will drive students into schools that offer different teaching environments for different temperaments and in combination will restore normative behavior to the population and commons. An homogenous germanic protestant middle class population is far different from a diverse population from different gene pools that mature at different rates to different depths. Humans do not ‘grow’ a the same rate in all senses. Nor are we endowed with equal abilities and challenges. And each must be taught as his biology allows. REALLOCATION OF TIME TO HOME AND COMMONS There is no evidence that education of more than two to three hours a day produces any value whatsoever. There is substantial evidence that education produces infantilization and ignorance. And that a few hours a day in the late morning, and then continuous exposure to life, family, friends, commons, business and industry provides higher returns in maturity and abilities. Returning children to the labor force is more important than adding mothers to it. We have to understand that vast numbers of women entering the workplace was not a net add. It merely reduced replacment rates, pushed men in to higher risk jobs at lower pay, forced the west to import underclasses, and force us to lie about equality of people in traits and abilities, and the only net gain was letting one generation retire early, instead of maintaining part time, light burdent work that kept them mobile, healthy, and engaged in life. CURRICULUM I’ve written elsewhere on cirriculum extensively, largely to eliminate pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, propaganda, and outright lies, and to return to evidentiary knoweldge. The net is that we teach people poorly and pseudoscientifically, when the process of education is actually quite trivial. Needless to say teachiung is a craft and teachers have talents for it or they don’t. But the process is very simple: narrative for context, basic operations, higher explanations and patterns, and repetition of all using natural lanaguage.  In the enlightenment and especially after 1920 there appears to have been a rapid expansion of the ‘crafts’ claiming academic pretenses, and incorporating pseudoscientific language into all the ‘crafts’.  Many of these ‘crafts’ are in the ‘liberal arts’ and ‘social sciences’ including education. But tehy are mere crafts consisting of a very small number of basic operations, the most important of which is subjective analysis of mental states, and the attempt to communicate how to extend that mental state. This is not a science. It is a hand-craft that can be raised to an art.   Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • REFORMATION OF EDUCATION Roughly speaking we spend 10K per student per year, whi

    REFORMATION OF EDUCATION

    Roughly speaking we spend 10K per student per year, which varies from a low of 7k in Utah to a high of 20k in NY, plus an additional 2k per student at the federal level’s department of education. I don’t know the state overhead numbers.

    As far as I can tell there is zero value provided by every single individual above the practicing teacher. As far as I can tell the entire academic establishment teaches pseudoscience in order to justify greater expenditures and higher salaries – since teaching is a pretty simple interpersonal craft more dependent upon the individual teacher’s character and abilities than any particular methodology. Teaching no subject is difficult if taught in the context of the historical narrative, and applied through repetition with natural language.

    My suggestion would be to do away with all administration in the country entirely, require teachers to form sub-s corporations holding any physical plant (school) as an asset, and require each of them to carry insurance-of-performance like lawyers and accountants, series seven holders, and bonded professionals.

    Deliver purchasing power parity vouchers to each student depending upon his region. Allow students and parents to shop for schools and entrepreneurs to form new ones.

    This will drive students into schools that offer different teaching environments for different temperaments and in combination will restore normative behavior to the population and commons.

    An homogenous germanic protestant middle class population is far different from a diverse population from different gene pools that mature at different rates to different depths. Humans do not ‘grow’ a the same rate in all senses. Nor are we endowed with equal abilities and challenges. And each must be taught as his biology allows.

    CURRICULUM

    There is no evidence that education of more than two to three hours a day produces any value whatsoever. There is substantial evidence that education produces infantilization and ignorance. And that a few hours a day in the late morning, and then continuous exposure to life, family, friends, commons, business and industry provides higher returns in maturity and abilities. Returning children to the labor force is more important than adding mothers to it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 14:59:00 UTC

  • The Limits of Markets: Kin.

    Markets either facilitate our families, tribes, and nations, or they prey upon our families tribes and nations. Markets and the consumption they provide us, do not create limitless goods. At some point we are no longer advancing our kin, but instead, preventing a future for them. There is no incentive for good families to cooperate and refrain from parasitism if they sacrifice their lineage for others. Either cooperation is mutually beneficial and mutually non-sacrificial, or it is just theft by other means.