Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T. ( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy litera

    WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T.

    ( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 02:24:00 UTC

  • AI’S WILL BE MORE MORAL THAN HUMANS UNLESS WE CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THEM SO. Humans

    AI’S WILL BE MORE MORAL THAN HUMANS UNLESS WE CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THEM SO.

    Humans have the ability to choose rationally whether to cooperate, avoid, parasite, or prey upon others. Machines do not need to have this choice.

    Humans create three organizations in order to make it difficult to prey upon one another. WE would do the same for AI’s.

    1) (OSTRACIZATION) Religion, Myth, Tradition, Norm,

    2) (BOYCOTT) Finance, Credit, Banking, Industry, business, trade.

    3) (FORCE) Military, Judiciary, Law, Sheriff, Police

    We can create the same organizations for AI’s and the awesome difference is that we can create AI’s to read each other’s minds.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 06:09:00 UTC

  • ADDING DEPTH TO TALEB’S INSIGHT THAT MINORITY RULE IS SUPERIOR TO MAJORITY. (Shh

    ADDING DEPTH TO TALEB’S INSIGHT THAT MINORITY RULE IS SUPERIOR TO MAJORITY. (Shhh. Its all in the incentives.)

    Nassim,

    (edited for clarity)

    I’ll fortify your thought experiment a bit. To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this:

    1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators.

    2) The longer term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office.

    3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.)

    4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class).

    5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control)

    So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.)

    Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability.

    Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 02:35:00 UTC

  • Maybe Some People Catch On. But Others Don’t: Unity By Trade.

      (important) I have to continue to crush the Rothbardian fallacy just like I have to continue to crush the neocon fallacy, and the postmodern fallacy. The socialist fallacy has been crushed. And we are in the process of crushing the Keynesian fallacy and the democratic fallacy.

    But to unite libertarians both artisanal, bourgeoisie and martial, I have to kill off the competing lies. Why? because the truth is uncomfortable for each of us. But it is only the truth that illustrates our common goals, and the high cost we must each pay to create liberty by the organized use of violence to deny it to others. And in that organization we must understand we must each sacrifice class perfection in order to achieve class maximum good: the artisan, the bourgeoisie, and the martial must limit their gains to that which imposes no cost upon the other two. To be an army we must obey the natural law discovered by warriors: impose no cost upon your brothers. We insure one another’s property. All of it. In every form. That which one expends his life’s efforts upon determines his investment in his property. The scale of that investment is not determined by his efforts, but by its value to others in providing incentives to change state of the universe from the current condition to one more favorable. So between effort and scale we know value exists. But even if we have difficulty measuring it other than by comparison, that value is never zero, and as such must be respected. This is the reciprocal exchange of insurance of property between warriors that creates the institution of property and if sufficiently rigorous, the condition of liberty. And no other means exists by which to construct either. Liberty cannot be obtained by permission, only by construction. Curt Doolittle the Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Maybe Some People Catch On. But Others Don’t: Unity By Trade.

      (important) I have to continue to crush the Rothbardian fallacy just like I have to continue to crush the neocon fallacy, and the postmodern fallacy. The socialist fallacy has been crushed. And we are in the process of crushing the Keynesian fallacy and the democratic fallacy.

    But to unite libertarians both artisanal, bourgeoisie and martial, I have to kill off the competing lies. Why? because the truth is uncomfortable for each of us. But it is only the truth that illustrates our common goals, and the high cost we must each pay to create liberty by the organized use of violence to deny it to others. And in that organization we must understand we must each sacrifice class perfection in order to achieve class maximum good: the artisan, the bourgeoisie, and the martial must limit their gains to that which imposes no cost upon the other two. To be an army we must obey the natural law discovered by warriors: impose no cost upon your brothers. We insure one another’s property. All of it. In every form. That which one expends his life’s efforts upon determines his investment in his property. The scale of that investment is not determined by his efforts, but by its value to others in providing incentives to change state of the universe from the current condition to one more favorable. So between effort and scale we know value exists. But even if we have difficulty measuring it other than by comparison, that value is never zero, and as such must be respected. This is the reciprocal exchange of insurance of property between warriors that creates the institution of property and if sufficiently rigorous, the condition of liberty. And no other means exists by which to construct either. Liberty cannot be obtained by permission, only by construction. Curt Doolittle the Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • People Will Find Truth Unappealing Or Unconvincing

    Well lets take that criticism further: due to dunning kreuger effect, just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities. And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. That means that fundamental truths must be articulated in a different language for about every 15 points of IQ (standard deviation) and in life this is exactly what we see. So any sufficiently advanced concept will be impossible to voluntarily accept into one’s framework unless it is converted into lanague (analogy to experience) that is within the ability of an individual to experience. We do not limit truths to that which teh common man can experience. We seek to create tools by which the common man can experience it given his limited abilities to experience that which he cannot directly percieve. I have said all along that I am not sure I am capable of reducing my language to that of the common man, and I have struggled very hard to reduce it to digestible form for the uncommon man. But there are others who will happily take this technology and transform it for their subordinate groups. I am pretty confident that propertarianism is revolutionary on the scale of Hume and Darwin. And while both those men are better authors than I am, if Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Heidegger can be reduced from abstraction to policy then certainly propertarianism and testimonialism can be. After all. in the end the principles are simple: 1) We constitute a division of perception and cognition as well as labor, and it is through voluntary cooperation that we make use of the specialized perception of each. 2) The law of non imposition is sufficient for the rational decidability of all conflicts among men. This law can be incrementally discovered as we incrementally evolve our knowledge and deceit, productivity and parasitism, private property and commons, cooperation and conflict. 3) We domesticated man by the centralization of rents, and then further domesticate man by the suppression of centralized rents both of which are accomplished by the opposing arts of competition in the market, and juridical defense via common law, under natural law, insured by reciprocal warranty, where that warranty is provided by the promise of violence. 4) there are three methods of coercion which we can use for ill or good in the creation or disorder or order. and men learn to specialize in them, and we develop class hierarchies in each: violence, remuneration, and gossip. These three groups roughly battle for political control and it is this constant conflict that assists us in adaptation to different circumstances. Liberty and truth keep us flexible enough to adapt to any circumstance using the specializations of any of those three classes. Ergo they are not a hierarchy but competitors. 5) We could not mandate truth because as we developed greater knowledge the means of deceit (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism) exceeded our ability to defeat them with the common law. But today we CAN know how to defeat them by demanding the same warranties of due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we demand of goods and services in the market for consumption and commons. Testimonialism gives us sufficient criteria for putting into the common natural law, the method by which we must speak truthfully in order to prevent harm(imposition of costs) by externality. Now does everyone need to understand all these things and their consequences? No. They need instruction in grammar, rhetoric, and testimony: the art of warrantying that one does no harm when speaking in public. This does not mean we cannot err. It means only that we must provide due diligence to intellectual products just as we provide due diligence for goods and services rendered. Since we did much of this in the past when our science and public speech was limited largely to direct interpersonal experience, there is no reason we cannot teach one to do the same to indirect impersonal experience of cooperation in the broader market. This is all entirely possible. Whether liars, parasites, and rent seekers will like the fact that they can no longer speak without due diligence is something else. People do not need to agree to truth. It just is. People do not need to agree to common or natural law, it just is. Only under democracy do we care about majority opinion. Liberty is constructed by elites who refuse to tolerate the alternatives. So we must merely not tolerate the alternatives.

  • People Will Find Truth Unappealing Or Unconvincing

    Well lets take that criticism further: due to dunning kreuger effect, just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities. And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. That means that fundamental truths must be articulated in a different language for about every 15 points of IQ (standard deviation) and in life this is exactly what we see. So any sufficiently advanced concept will be impossible to voluntarily accept into one’s framework unless it is converted into lanague (analogy to experience) that is within the ability of an individual to experience. We do not limit truths to that which teh common man can experience. We seek to create tools by which the common man can experience it given his limited abilities to experience that which he cannot directly percieve. I have said all along that I am not sure I am capable of reducing my language to that of the common man, and I have struggled very hard to reduce it to digestible form for the uncommon man. But there are others who will happily take this technology and transform it for their subordinate groups. I am pretty confident that propertarianism is revolutionary on the scale of Hume and Darwin. And while both those men are better authors than I am, if Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Heidegger can be reduced from abstraction to policy then certainly propertarianism and testimonialism can be. After all. in the end the principles are simple: 1) We constitute a division of perception and cognition as well as labor, and it is through voluntary cooperation that we make use of the specialized perception of each. 2) The law of non imposition is sufficient for the rational decidability of all conflicts among men. This law can be incrementally discovered as we incrementally evolve our knowledge and deceit, productivity and parasitism, private property and commons, cooperation and conflict. 3) We domesticated man by the centralization of rents, and then further domesticate man by the suppression of centralized rents both of which are accomplished by the opposing arts of competition in the market, and juridical defense via common law, under natural law, insured by reciprocal warranty, where that warranty is provided by the promise of violence. 4) there are three methods of coercion which we can use for ill or good in the creation or disorder or order. and men learn to specialize in them, and we develop class hierarchies in each: violence, remuneration, and gossip. These three groups roughly battle for political control and it is this constant conflict that assists us in adaptation to different circumstances. Liberty and truth keep us flexible enough to adapt to any circumstance using the specializations of any of those three classes. Ergo they are not a hierarchy but competitors. 5) We could not mandate truth because as we developed greater knowledge the means of deceit (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism) exceeded our ability to defeat them with the common law. But today we CAN know how to defeat them by demanding the same warranties of due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we demand of goods and services in the market for consumption and commons. Testimonialism gives us sufficient criteria for putting into the common natural law, the method by which we must speak truthfully in order to prevent harm(imposition of costs) by externality. Now does everyone need to understand all these things and their consequences? No. They need instruction in grammar, rhetoric, and testimony: the art of warrantying that one does no harm when speaking in public. This does not mean we cannot err. It means only that we must provide due diligence to intellectual products just as we provide due diligence for goods and services rendered. Since we did much of this in the past when our science and public speech was limited largely to direct interpersonal experience, there is no reason we cannot teach one to do the same to indirect impersonal experience of cooperation in the broader market. This is all entirely possible. Whether liars, parasites, and rent seekers will like the fact that they can no longer speak without due diligence is something else. People do not need to agree to truth. It just is. People do not need to agree to common or natural law, it just is. Only under democracy do we care about majority opinion. Liberty is constructed by elites who refuse to tolerate the alternatives. So we must merely not tolerate the alternatives.

  • We Are Equal In Our Tribal Capacity For Transcendence

    There are good Jews bad Jews, good Christians, bad Christians, good and bad in each race, and good and bad everyone. A quote from my favorite Rabbi and a man I love dearly, and always will. We can use the positive or we can exercise the negative. In the matters of good and bad, we can suppress parasitism, and advance our family and tribe. We need not treat groups as negative, only seek to advance our kin as a positive.
    The logical conflict occurs whenever any group attempts to assert universalism. But any universalism (equality) will sort groups into natural orders according to the median of their abilities – and force them to function by those natural orders according to the median of their abilities. The only universal law of cooperation between groups is not to force others to bear costs, while advancing your kin toward transcendence. The mandate that we are in fact equal forces us not to be. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
    –COMMENTS–
    Curt, While it would appear he who specialize in both the “visible efficiencies” and “invisible vulnerabilities”. Or the nation – state that does, would very likely be better placed to equilibrate indicatively and so anticipate, prevent, mitigate theconsequential fall were there to be unfavourable imbalance, which do you think is the least costly of the alternate two: √ Strength, specialisation in the visible efficiencies. While unable to accurately map the invisible weaknesses of the individual, a corporation, nation – state, empire. √ Visible efficiency deficiencies while strong, considerable expert in invisible vulnerability per person, a given corporation, nation – state, empire.
    —–
    (damn, you write elegantly.) I don’t know if I agree with the dichotomy. I would say that at all times one needs the strength to prevent external conquests or internal rents, while still producing commons. It is very clear that the centralization of rents is necessary to pay for the local suppression of rents, thereby freeing property and trade. it is very clear that it is hard to prevent the centralization of rents (fees, taxes or whatever) from internal parasitism, and it appears militaries do this better than political and commercial ordganizations. Or rather that militaries do it best, commercial less so, and political terribly. It is also very clear that once the internal rents are established that it is equally difficult to suppress them by converting from monopoly rent beuraucdracy to competitive service providing privatization. It is also not clear that total conversion from monopolistic to competitive is as advantageous as we theorized. And instead that a mix of private public funding, outsourced management, limited competition, and a judiciary with universal standing for defense by the population, seems to be a complex, expensive, yet optimum solution. So like any evolutionary system we must grow from simple to complex over time with only one ambition: elminate all parasitism while continuing to produce commons.

  • We Are Equal In Our Tribal Capacity For Transcendence

    There are good Jews bad Jews, good Christians, bad Christians, good and bad in each race, and good and bad everyone. A quote from my favorite Rabbi and a man I love dearly, and always will. We can use the positive or we can exercise the negative. In the matters of good and bad, we can suppress parasitism, and advance our family and tribe. We need not treat groups as negative, only seek to advance our kin as a positive.
    The logical conflict occurs whenever any group attempts to assert universalism. But any universalism (equality) will sort groups into natural orders according to the median of their abilities – and force them to function by those natural orders according to the median of their abilities. The only universal law of cooperation between groups is not to force others to bear costs, while advancing your kin toward transcendence. The mandate that we are in fact equal forces us not to be. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
    –COMMENTS–
    Curt, While it would appear he who specialize in both the “visible efficiencies” and “invisible vulnerabilities”. Or the nation – state that does, would very likely be better placed to equilibrate indicatively and so anticipate, prevent, mitigate theconsequential fall were there to be unfavourable imbalance, which do you think is the least costly of the alternate two: √ Strength, specialisation in the visible efficiencies. While unable to accurately map the invisible weaknesses of the individual, a corporation, nation – state, empire. √ Visible efficiency deficiencies while strong, considerable expert in invisible vulnerability per person, a given corporation, nation – state, empire.
    —–
    (damn, you write elegantly.) I don’t know if I agree with the dichotomy. I would say that at all times one needs the strength to prevent external conquests or internal rents, while still producing commons. It is very clear that the centralization of rents is necessary to pay for the local suppression of rents, thereby freeing property and trade. it is very clear that it is hard to prevent the centralization of rents (fees, taxes or whatever) from internal parasitism, and it appears militaries do this better than political and commercial ordganizations. Or rather that militaries do it best, commercial less so, and political terribly. It is also very clear that once the internal rents are established that it is equally difficult to suppress them by converting from monopoly rent beuraucdracy to competitive service providing privatization. It is also not clear that total conversion from monopolistic to competitive is as advantageous as we theorized. And instead that a mix of private public funding, outsourced management, limited competition, and a judiciary with universal standing for defense by the population, seems to be a complex, expensive, yet optimum solution. So like any evolutionary system we must grow from simple to complex over time with only one ambition: elminate all parasitism while continuing to produce commons.

  • Natural Law Isn’t Complicated

    Imagine you visit a totally alien island, and have no knowledge of manners, ethics, morals, traditions myths, rituals, laws, institutions, and metaphysical value judgments. History is replete with the difficulty of establishing communication, trust, cooperation, trade, and especially, non-conflict.

    But because of natural laws we can start from the lowest methods of communication: giving gifts, and avoiding threats, while maintaining capable defense. It is these lowest common denominators that we refer to with ‘natural law’. *Impose no cost, nor threaten to impose a cost, upon those who have expended efforts in the accumulation of whatever reproductive, productive, institutional, and territorial assets that they have.