Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • 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.

  • The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government

    (important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:
    a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government

    (important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:
    a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Decidability And Morality

    While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessarily a test of truth. Whereas testimonial decidability does serve as a test of truth. We tend to confuse platonic truth (that arrangement of ideas we might possess if we possessed more information than we currently do) where our model is infinitely intertemporal(extends into the future regardless of problem set, with decidable truth, where our model is a problem we seek to solve with the knowledge available, with analytic truth, where we possess all possible knowledge because our model is axiomatic. But this is a confusion of the information present at different points of the present

    The problem for these philosophers of empty verbalism, is that once a theory provides perfect decidability, it’s true by all possible measures. So natural law is ‘true’ even if you don’t like it. Now if you don’t like it, then I (we) can certainly understand why – you lose all opportunity for parasitism. Now you might make claims that reciprocal insurance in which you or others become beneficiaries isn’t parasitism. But then we would have to distinguish between accident and choice. And in that analysis, there are very few acts of god other than catastrophic illness and natural disasters that are not your choice. Even those are largely avoidable if you haven’t chosen poorly. This is why so many people prefer to hang on pseudo-moral arguments, and pseudo-moral religious arguments: in order to preserve their parasitism. When instead, they could simply offer to be better people in exchange for that which they seek> And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Self-discipline is a high cost and one that many of us seek to avoid paying by making false moral and religious claims in order to obtain benefits by acts of deception using appeals to our signals of status and self-worth, charity, and altruism.. Whereas the moral folk, who build good families, object to the vast difference in payments of self-discipline that they contribute to the commons, as well as the material payments they make to those who fail to exercise that discipline. Why? Because they pay double. whereas they would gladly pay money in return for behavior.

  • Decidability And Morality

    While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessarily a test of truth. Whereas testimonial decidability does serve as a test of truth. We tend to confuse platonic truth (that arrangement of ideas we might possess if we possessed more information than we currently do) where our model is infinitely intertemporal(extends into the future regardless of problem set, with decidable truth, where our model is a problem we seek to solve with the knowledge available, with analytic truth, where we possess all possible knowledge because our model is axiomatic. But this is a confusion of the information present at different points of the present

    The problem for these philosophers of empty verbalism, is that once a theory provides perfect decidability, it’s true by all possible measures. So natural law is ‘true’ even if you don’t like it. Now if you don’t like it, then I (we) can certainly understand why – you lose all opportunity for parasitism. Now you might make claims that reciprocal insurance in which you or others become beneficiaries isn’t parasitism. But then we would have to distinguish between accident and choice. And in that analysis, there are very few acts of god other than catastrophic illness and natural disasters that are not your choice. Even those are largely avoidable if you haven’t chosen poorly. This is why so many people prefer to hang on pseudo-moral arguments, and pseudo-moral religious arguments: in order to preserve their parasitism. When instead, they could simply offer to be better people in exchange for that which they seek> And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Self-discipline is a high cost and one that many of us seek to avoid paying by making false moral and religious claims in order to obtain benefits by acts of deception using appeals to our signals of status and self-worth, charity, and altruism.. Whereas the moral folk, who build good families, object to the vast difference in payments of self-discipline that they contribute to the commons, as well as the material payments they make to those who fail to exercise that discipline. Why? Because they pay double. whereas they would gladly pay money in return for behavior.

  • Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors

    –Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.

    Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

  • Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors

    –Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.

    Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

  • Aristocracy Made Us.

    The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.

    The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us.

  • Aristocracy Made Us.

    The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.

    The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us.

  • Why Will Fiat Currency Always Exist?

    The truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equlibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy.