Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Jefferson misunderstood. It is not the method of governance that matters so much

    Jefferson misunderstood.

    It is not the method of governance that matters so much as rule of law that constrains the action of all – governing and governed alike.

    He justified majoritarianism, possible only under homogenity, yet enfranchised all hoping that the church would create the homogenaity.

    But the ‘priesthood’ that ‘kept the faith’ of western civilization in prehistory, and in the ancient, medieval, and modern periods, has been the judiciary. The church was just another house of government.

    The question we must solve is quite simple: how to preserve the independence, scholarship, and exclusivity of the judiciary, as the final arbiter of disputes over property-in-toto.

    The truth is that self interest alone is what drives these people. And self defense of their status is enough, so long as the militia stands, and the miitary indocrtinates.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 09:09:00 UTC

  • Things HBR doesn’t tell you. Entrepreneurs are largely born. If you require insp

    Things HBR doesn’t tell you.

    Entrepreneurs are largely born. If you require inspiration rather than relief from frustration you don’t have the gene.

    Small/medium business owners have the highest average income our if every single occupation.

    Opportunities can be captured by many means:

    By your incentive to pursue an otherwise unprofitable niche market.

    ( tech services )

    By your disruption of an inefficient cost structure.

    ( aged bureaucracy )

    By your invention of a replacement of marginal difference.

    ( shrinking disk drives )

    By applying credit to an efficient but disrupt able market.

    ( big box stores )

    By appealing to greed and fantasy.

    ( gambling )

    By taking advantage of taboos, laws, and regulation.

    ( black market and drugs )

    By selling harmless pseudoscience.

    ( dietary supplements )

    By taking advantage of hardship

    ( mortgage schemes )

    By perpetuating a fraud. ( financial services)

    By the use of bribery. (Corruption)

    By violent coercion. ( organised crime )

    By conspiracy ( govt )

    By conquest. (War )

    Ideas are neither scarce nor special. Customers, marketing, sales and distribution channels as scare everyone and special.

    It is almost impossible to preserve customer focus of employee and management effort. People seek to avoid it like the unpredictable work that it is.

    Credit capacity is more influential than product quality.

    We try to be cunning to get attention but customers just care about the truth. Tell them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 12:27:00 UTC

  • GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK (more on heroism and the west) A good c

    GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK

    (more on heroism and the west)

    A good critic is a precious thing. I love good criticism. I make most of my progress on tough issues because I’m challenged by good critics. And unfortunately, good critics are rare. Frank Lovell, Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Josh Jeppson, Adam Voight, Bruce (I forget his name), and a few others have been particularly influential in providing criticism that was deep enough that I was able to make progress using it.

    Josh has been pushing me very hard for over a year on Aryanism and has clearly sensed it from an individual rather than social point of view (conceptual grammar so to speak).

    I have an ‘impersonal’ view of Aryanism – or all social orders for that matter. I think more in production, costs, logistics, and strategy like general, or a governor, than in the tactics, and rewards, and experiences of a warrior. So I tend to think of the resources necessary to conduct war using training and technology, rather than the inspiration of the individuals who do the fighting. I would rather give them material confidence in weapons, and strategy, than inspiration on the field. I am not a fan of poetic speech. A soldier who has material confidence does not need inspiration if he thinks he will win. And it is the abilty to win without inspiration that I seek to provide.

    But that doesn’t mean that don’t recognize truth in criticisms.

    And it wasn’t until last night that Josh voiced his criticism in a way that I could sleep on it a bit, and convert it to ‘scientific’ language.

    And while Axial-Age epistemology (the social order of power at the time), and the various concepts of truth therein are probably the first differentiators between the intellectual traditions of cultures and civilizations, I think the normative channeling of dominance that results from that social order in the axial age, is an insight that can help explain far more about various civilizations than can truth alone.

    Heroism is interesting in that it trains us from birth, not to suppress dominance but to channel it toward commons-producing ends. This individual competition for dominance by positive means is what produces over time the high trust society, in the same way it produced a high trust warrior ruling-class that we call ‘Aryanism’.

    i suspect that if I do the research (which might be expensive or time-consuming) that testimonial martial truth(bearing a cost) and heroism(bearing a cost), and dominance (demonstrating superiority empirically) produce a market for excellence in all walks of life. And that this market ‘calculates’ excellence, and is the CAUSE of our interest in economic markets that ‘calculate’ excellences as well.

    i will continue to work with this for a while. But the central insight that Truth, Heroism, and Dominance Markets calculate faster than the alternative social orders, fits well with my prior arguments that common law calculates suppression of parasitism faster, and that markets calculate innovations faster, and that frequent small wars calculate innovations faster, and that many small nations calculate innovations faster.

    And that the reason for the rapid advancement of the west in the ancient and modern worlds has been that we simply ‘calculate'(adapt and innovate) faster. And so it is not impressive if “china got there first’ so to speak, simply because they started first. The question is rather, what model will continually outpace all other models in innovation regardless of wealth and regardless of population size.

    And I think that is the answer to western civilization.

    We are not first we are fastest.

    Dominance, Sovereignty, Heroism, Truth, Voluntary Militia: The only possible institutions under that set of values are markets. And markets like cavalry that makes choices, are faster than footsoldiers that follow orders.

    it’s that simple.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:21:00 UTC

  • (My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work

    (My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work I see the similarity in cognitive processing. She works pretty continuously. She searches for new ideas. Does her research. Thinks them through. Tests them against experience. And never considers learning ‘done’. Which is something I think separates persistent people from those who are too desirous of outcomes rather than processes of continuous improvement. Family members are good tools for learning about yourself. Anyway, the difference between us is just one of scale. The process is the same. And I can’t say that for everyone. There is something different about people who think ‘what don’t I know’ from those who think in terms of ‘what I know’. Maybe it’s some sort of insecurity or paranoia at first. Or maybe it comes from being younger than your peers, or surrounded by adults. But there is definitely a difference in how some of us exercise our minds. What can I do, versus what can’t I do and why? What do I know versus what don’t I know and what can I do about it? Why do you think that, and why do i think this, and what can I do to decide? This is the essence of ‘seek to understand’. Most people seek something rather short term by comparison. Like whether they like it or approve of it, whether it’s useful or not, whether they agree or not, whether they understand or not, whether they want to pay the cost of it or not. But there is a group of us who just remain confident that we don’t ‘know’ anything so to speak so much as that we’re continuously learning what does and doesn’t work. And that this learning is our ‘entertainment’. So that we simply experience far more hours of thought on any subject than others do. And really, whether you’re terribly bright or not is not quite as important (except on the margins) as whether you just stick with something long enough to become an expert in it to such a degree that there are very few others with your level of expertise. we are rewarded in life for the number of masteries we accumulate. mastery is valuable. But it takes lots of time.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 13:36:00 UTC

  • CHOOSE: LARGE CASTE, SMALL NATION As South America, Islamic Civilization, Indian

    CHOOSE: LARGE CASTE, SMALL NATION

    As South America, Islamic Civilization, Indian Civilization, and the Roman Empire demonstrated, there is no ‘uniformity’ or equality possible thru inbreeding. We either divide into nation-states or we divide into castes.

    So we can only choose the to distribute hierarchies and underclasses across many small states with possible rotations, or concentrate them in an inescapable caste-trap in large states.

    This is effectively law of nature that humans would have to act against their personal and reproductive interests to change.

    For the simple reasons that (a) some races have been more successful at morphological evolution through paedomorphic mating, (b) we are unequally desirable as mates, friends, partners, allies, and leaders, because of degrees of paedomorphic evolution and eugenic culling of the underclasses, and (c) we demonstrate both kin selection(more male) and hypergamy(more female) mating preferences.

    So we can choose castes or nations. And the evidence is in: Many small nations are superior at producing relative equality.

    That this is both obvious and logical is in itself a criticism of our tendency to seek safety in numbers even when it is against our interests, and to imagine commonality of thought and interest where it does not and cannot exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 08:34:00 UTC

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

  • MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly po

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE

    We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true.

    But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict.

    We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict.

    That means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges for matters of conflict.

    It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition.

    We may not like this. But then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances.

    We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on.

    The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability.

    But those differences remain decidable.

    Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:29:00 UTC