Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • State Incentives

    By Eli Harman The allegation is often made (by libertarian anarchists) that what states do is fundamentally incalculable, but that it is always negative sum. In other words, we cannot know the absolute value of any state or state policy, but we can be certain about its sign. Voluntary trades in the marketplace – as the argument goes – are always mutually beneficial (else they wouldn‘t occur) and positive sum. State policies differ in requiring coercion. If they did not require coercion, they could occur in the marketplace. But if they do, then someone is losing out, so there is no way to be sure they represent a net gain. Without the mechanism of voluntary exchange, the information transmitted by prices in a marketplace are absent and no calculation is possible. In all likelihood they represent a net loss, certainly a loss relative to the opportunity cost of the purely voluntary marketplace foregone. But it doesn’t seem that states ever would have become ubiquitous or persistent if this were true. Empirically, state-ridden peoples have proven competitive against stateless ones. If error and parasitism were the whole story, they would not be. States, after all, are in constant conflict and competition with one another and with alternatives (or at least they were at one time.) However, the argument is incomplete and therefore incorrect. We can reasonably expect voluntary, fully-informed, exchanges – free of externality – to be Pareto improvements. (They make someone better off and no one worse off.) But in the first place, market transactions don’t always live up to this standard, because they are not necessarily fully informed nor free of externality. And in the second place, some of the things states do might; because they are of the nature of voluntary exchanges. An individual exchanges the sum total of costs a state imposes (on them) for the sum total of benefits it offers (to them) every time they voluntarily choose not to move to the jurisdiction of another state. (And these exchanges can be made more precisely calculable by reducing the exit costs and increasing the number and variety of states on offer.) Furthermore, all states require the voluntary consent of at least enough individuals and groups to successfully compel the submission of the remainder. And the coalition that arises to perform this function arises by a process of reciprocal exchange (You want such and such a boon to participate in our coalition? Well we want this concession and that from you in exchange.) In brokering these exchanges, a Monarchy offers several advantages over a democratically elected government. A democracy will be inherently and irreparably susceptible to negative-sum corruption because of the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. A policy which benefits 1,000 people $10,000 each may be politically profitable even if it costs a million people $100 each. The concentrated interest will be relatively less hampered by information costs and coordination problems. So it will be able to muster more votes and resources in defense of the policy than those harmed will be able to muster against it, though the harm be much greater. Nothing would stop anyone from proposing such a policy to a king. And a king could get away with implementing it. But a king, who owns his realm and title, as well as its capital value, would not benefit from doing so. The future revenue he could expect to derive from his realm and subjects would decline as a result. And so his incentive would be to veto such proposals. Furthermore, in a majority democracy, if your ruling coalition encompasses more than 51 percent of voters, it’s leaving rents on the table. If you’re getting, say, 70 percent of the vote, that simply means you’re delivering more value than you need to and failing to extract as much as you could. You could take a little more and give a little less without losing the election. So in a democracy, we can expect the ruling coalition at any given time to consist of about 51% of voters (and those the worst 51%) and that does indeed seem to be what we see. But conflict and compulsion, though inevitable and irresolvable under democracy, are costly and actually largely unnecessary. So we can expect a wise monarch to start building his coalition of supporters with the best and keep working his way down the list until the only people that remain in need of compulsion are those who have nothing to offer which is worth what they demand in exchange for voluntary cooperation: in short, people who probably should be coerced.

  • Why Is The Black Race Judged By Of Its Least Successful Members?

    It isn’t. It’s judged by the dominance of it’s race in failures of education, crime, civic behavior, business achievement, intellectual achievement, and artistic and literary achievement. The east asians and western europeans have aggressively killed off their lower classes through winters, starvation, enslavment, hanging, beheading, war, and a very severe justice system for thousands of years. The rest of the world has not. So the size of the underclasses in the black, arabic, turkic, hispanic, and southeast asian worlds is far higher a percentage than in the more northern climes. West and east were eugenic civilizations. Rice is a brutal system requiring disciplined work 360 days a year. Western winters are unforgiving.

    Humans think by stereotypes just as we think in all other categories. We have to. We cannot afford to interrogate every person we meet. We cannot pay the high cost of risk of trusting people from high risk groups. Instead, how can people from high risk groups signal (demonstrate) that they are good risks? Research has consistently shown, that contrary to popular myth, stereotypes are the most ACCURATE feature in social science. So people must rely on stereotypes, stereotypes are true, and it is the responsibility of people who are members of negatively stereotyped groups to change their behavior and signals so that they are visibly not a risk.

    When we say ‘we can’t judge this middle class black man’ or some other “Not All X Are Like That”, we are either committing a rhetorical fallacy or simply lying. Why? because the fact that we say most people of group X are a high risk, we are not saying that an outlier is. Yet conversely, we are saying (almost always correctly) that most people from group X are in fact a higher risk that we perceive our own group to be.

    We know the reasons for black underclass achievement: (a) the disproportionate size of the black underclass below 85 IQ, and the comparatively small sizes of its middle and upper middle classes, and total absence of an upper class, (b) earlier and more rapid maturity accompanied by the same level of hormones, leading to impulsivity and aggression, (c) lower verbal intelligence, (d) lower aggregate intelligence, (e) destruction of the black family by the progressive programs of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the 1960’s – his attempt to mimc soviet resettlement programs from villages to urban areas without grasping the vast differences in Russian and black human capital. (f) the attempt to educate different races that mature more or less, more quickly or more slowly, at the same age under the same conditions. Educate black and hispanic men in what equates to military training and you will get good men out of it. You cannot ask humans in their youth to fight hormones that intense. Educating pliable asians and less pliable and more physical whites at the same rates is equally destructive. We can start asians and east asians one to two years earlier than whites, and it’s arguable that we should provide two more years for hispanics and three for blacks. It prevents schools from tailoring programs to the genetic needs of the children.

    We get nowhere by lying that we’re equally distributed. It’s liberal lies of equality that prevent us from developing institutions that support the needs of different genetic organisms, with different rates of maturity, different degrees of maturity, and different sizes of underclass.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    My job is to prevent lies in public discourse that prevent us from coming to compromises on policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-black-race-judged-by-of-its-least-successful-members

  • How Likely Is There To Be A Nuclear Missile Launch In The Forseeable Future?

    For at least the past fifty years, the general opinion has been, and our strategic schools teach, that nuclear weapons are political not military in nature. It is relatively impossible to use them. 1) Because if one does use them, one is open for becoming the victims of their use. 2) Politically, it would render a country isolated, and perhaps so severely that economic viability would fall into question. 3) And they are so destructive to civilians it is very hard to make use of without repercussions even from one’s allies or one’s own people.
    The world operates on a basic principle that they are a last resort.
    Iranians, Pakistan, and north Korea are the outliers. But while public rhetoric is one thing, actually pushing the button when doing so means that it is very likely that everyone in your country might die because of it, and certainly you will, makes it an unlikely thing to happen. Pakistan and India hold each other at bay. North Korea makes a lot of noise in order to obtain commercial and political bribes to balance out its horrid economy. And Iran is very cautious about building its program – and while the Iranian government is absurd by our standards, the Iranian intelligence service and its military are not. They are better off slowly gaining weapons and accumulating power through economic, political and conventional military means. We have to recall that for Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular, rattling sabers increases the price of oil. So they try to rattle them whenever it will profit them.
    So, it doesn’t APPEAR likely that anyone would use nuclear weapons. But a crystal ball that works doesn’t exist.

    https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-there-to-be-a-nuclear-missile-launch-in-the-forseeable-future

  • Why Is The Black Race Judged By Of Its Least Successful Members?

    It isn’t. It’s judged by the dominance of it’s race in failures of education, crime, civic behavior, business achievement, intellectual achievement, and artistic and literary achievement. The east asians and western europeans have aggressively killed off their lower classes through winters, starvation, enslavment, hanging, beheading, war, and a very severe justice system for thousands of years. The rest of the world has not. So the size of the underclasses in the black, arabic, turkic, hispanic, and southeast asian worlds is far higher a percentage than in the more northern climes. West and east were eugenic civilizations. Rice is a brutal system requiring disciplined work 360 days a year. Western winters are unforgiving.

    Humans think by stereotypes just as we think in all other categories. We have to. We cannot afford to interrogate every person we meet. We cannot pay the high cost of risk of trusting people from high risk groups. Instead, how can people from high risk groups signal (demonstrate) that they are good risks? Research has consistently shown, that contrary to popular myth, stereotypes are the most ACCURATE feature in social science. So people must rely on stereotypes, stereotypes are true, and it is the responsibility of people who are members of negatively stereotyped groups to change their behavior and signals so that they are visibly not a risk.

    When we say ‘we can’t judge this middle class black man’ or some other “Not All X Are Like That”, we are either committing a rhetorical fallacy or simply lying. Why? because the fact that we say most people of group X are a high risk, we are not saying that an outlier is. Yet conversely, we are saying (almost always correctly) that most people from group X are in fact a higher risk that we perceive our own group to be.

    We know the reasons for black underclass achievement: (a) the disproportionate size of the black underclass below 85 IQ, and the comparatively small sizes of its middle and upper middle classes, and total absence of an upper class, (b) earlier and more rapid maturity accompanied by the same level of hormones, leading to impulsivity and aggression, (c) lower verbal intelligence, (d) lower aggregate intelligence, (e) destruction of the black family by the progressive programs of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the 1960’s – his attempt to mimc soviet resettlement programs from villages to urban areas without grasping the vast differences in Russian and black human capital. (f) the attempt to educate different races that mature more or less, more quickly or more slowly, at the same age under the same conditions. Educate black and hispanic men in what equates to military training and you will get good men out of it. You cannot ask humans in their youth to fight hormones that intense. Educating pliable asians and less pliable and more physical whites at the same rates is equally destructive. We can start asians and east asians one to two years earlier than whites, and it’s arguable that we should provide two more years for hispanics and three for blacks. It prevents schools from tailoring programs to the genetic needs of the children.

    We get nowhere by lying that we’re equally distributed. It’s liberal lies of equality that prevent us from developing institutions that support the needs of different genetic organisms, with different rates of maturity, different degrees of maturity, and different sizes of underclass.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    My job is to prevent lies in public discourse that prevent us from coming to compromises on policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-black-race-judged-by-of-its-least-successful-members

  • How Likely Is There To Be A Nuclear Missile Launch In The Forseeable Future?

    For at least the past fifty years, the general opinion has been, and our strategic schools teach, that nuclear weapons are political not military in nature. It is relatively impossible to use them. 1) Because if one does use them, one is open for becoming the victims of their use. 2) Politically, it would render a country isolated, and perhaps so severely that economic viability would fall into question. 3) And they are so destructive to civilians it is very hard to make use of without repercussions even from one’s allies or one’s own people.
    The world operates on a basic principle that they are a last resort.
    Iranians, Pakistan, and north Korea are the outliers. But while public rhetoric is one thing, actually pushing the button when doing so means that it is very likely that everyone in your country might die because of it, and certainly you will, makes it an unlikely thing to happen. Pakistan and India hold each other at bay. North Korea makes a lot of noise in order to obtain commercial and political bribes to balance out its horrid economy. And Iran is very cautious about building its program – and while the Iranian government is absurd by our standards, the Iranian intelligence service and its military are not. They are better off slowly gaining weapons and accumulating power through economic, political and conventional military means. We have to recall that for Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular, rattling sabers increases the price of oil. So they try to rattle them whenever it will profit them.
    So, it doesn’t APPEAR likely that anyone would use nuclear weapons. But a crystal ball that works doesn’t exist.

    https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-there-to-be-a-nuclear-missile-launch-in-the-forseeable-future

  • Domestication Causes More Meaningful Evolution Than Mutation

    Sep 02, 2016 10:59pm As far as I know: 1) In the past 30k and certainly in the past 10K years, the driving force in selection has not been mutation, but ‘group domestication’. There are environmental selection pressures ( dairy, wheat, disease resistance) sure. But the primary difference has been, just like domesticated animals, domestication of mankind using the same techniques: maturity. 2) the primary change that has caused the major differences between the groups has been (a) rate of sexual maturity (b) degree of sexual maturity, (c) sexual dimorphism. Ergo, the primary differences are in endocrine expression. And from the data I’ve seen it’s pretty obvious that the majority of the difference in maturity has been testosterone levels. 3) the secondary major change has been how aggressively some groups domesticated their members (east asia, western europe), or how groups have been unable to domesticate their members (africa and the middle east). 4) of the mutations that do occur, these appear to be relatively minor trade-offs that are related to these differences (speed vs endurance). So as far as I now, evolution by mutation, has been trivial compared to evolution by domestication. This inverts the multi-level selection argument: most genetic mutation and drift is ‘noise’ and domestication has been the primary influence (culture), with the secondary influence being territory. The genome stores ‘options’ which we seem to express. I am not sure there is much of a case to be made for terribly meaningful genetic variation. In my work (which seems to have pleasantly shocked the Africans), as far as I can tell, the major differences between regional groups is how successful they have been at eliminating the underclasses and redistributing reproduction upwards. Unfortunately, it’s impolitic. But it is what it is. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Domestication Causes More Meaningful Evolution Than Mutation

    Sep 02, 2016 10:59pm As far as I know: 1) In the past 30k and certainly in the past 10K years, the driving force in selection has not been mutation, but ‘group domestication’. There are environmental selection pressures ( dairy, wheat, disease resistance) sure. But the primary difference has been, just like domesticated animals, domestication of mankind using the same techniques: maturity. 2) the primary change that has caused the major differences between the groups has been (a) rate of sexual maturity (b) degree of sexual maturity, (c) sexual dimorphism. Ergo, the primary differences are in endocrine expression. And from the data I’ve seen it’s pretty obvious that the majority of the difference in maturity has been testosterone levels. 3) the secondary major change has been how aggressively some groups domesticated their members (east asia, western europe), or how groups have been unable to domesticate their members (africa and the middle east). 4) of the mutations that do occur, these appear to be relatively minor trade-offs that are related to these differences (speed vs endurance). So as far as I now, evolution by mutation, has been trivial compared to evolution by domestication. This inverts the multi-level selection argument: most genetic mutation and drift is ‘noise’ and domestication has been the primary influence (culture), with the secondary influence being territory. The genome stores ‘options’ which we seem to express. I am not sure there is much of a case to be made for terribly meaningful genetic variation. In my work (which seems to have pleasantly shocked the Africans), as far as I can tell, the major differences between regional groups is how successful they have been at eliminating the underclasses and redistributing reproduction upwards. Unfortunately, it’s impolitic. But it is what it is. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Markets In Everything – And Economists Circumventing them.

    MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY A market for reproduction (family). A market for production (goods and services), a market for commons (government), a market for dispute resolution (common law), and a market for polities (voluntary association and disassociation). If you advocate for majority democracy by assent instead of market for commons under juridical defense, then you are just a fool and a thief like any other. It surprises me that you will hear economists justly criticize the misapplication of the economics of the family and small business to the international business, and government. Yet in the next breath advocate majoritarian democracy and the use of aggregates to conduct involuntary exchanges, rather than to construct a market for the voluntary exchange of commons uder juridical dissent in the next. Economists regularly justify their preconceptions and utilitarian biases by applying the decision-making of the tribe to that of the nation and empire. If there were voluntary construction of market commons rather than thefts by aggregation, think of (a) what economists would research instead of what they research today, and (b) what we would know about economics as a consequence rather than what we know today, and (c) how empowered each of us would be vs today, and (d) how we could solve problems of conflict between groups that we cannot solve today. Monopoly Majoritarian Representative Commons Production (Democratic government) is the origin of political conflict – NOT the solution to it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Markets In Everything – And Economists Circumventing them.

    MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY A market for reproduction (family). A market for production (goods and services), a market for commons (government), a market for dispute resolution (common law), and a market for polities (voluntary association and disassociation). If you advocate for majority democracy by assent instead of market for commons under juridical defense, then you are just a fool and a thief like any other. It surprises me that you will hear economists justly criticize the misapplication of the economics of the family and small business to the international business, and government. Yet in the next breath advocate majoritarian democracy and the use of aggregates to conduct involuntary exchanges, rather than to construct a market for the voluntary exchange of commons uder juridical dissent in the next. Economists regularly justify their preconceptions and utilitarian biases by applying the decision-making of the tribe to that of the nation and empire. If there were voluntary construction of market commons rather than thefts by aggregation, think of (a) what economists would research instead of what they research today, and (b) what we would know about economics as a consequence rather than what we know today, and (c) how empowered each of us would be vs today, and (d) how we could solve problems of conflict between groups that we cannot solve today. Monopoly Majoritarian Representative Commons Production (Democratic government) is the origin of political conflict – NOT the solution to it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • The Source of Bliss

    As far as I know feelings of intellectual bliss are caused by the pack response combined with obviating the labor of reason. Comfort food, comfort of home, comfort of surrendering to the will of the pack. Now, there are many kinds of feelings of bliss, as well as pleasure and joy. Some of them are clearly good – church, festival, feast, sporting event, and play. Some of them are less good because they do not require a commons to produce them and therefore require more methods of escape by the individual(communes and cults). Some of them are less good because they cause disconnection from reality(mental states). And some of them are less good because they cause physical and commons damage by consequence when escaping reality (drug use). GOOD Festivals, sporting events, theatres, Arts, literature, church, prayer/contemplation …. these are all excellent methods of non-destructive experience of the pack response. While metaphorical they are not false. They are safe means of exploring other worlds, and they obtain the consent of the commons. HARMFUL THROUGH LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY There are those things that are no longer metaphorical but false. Those things neither obtain the consent of the commons but reject it and reality. DESTRUCTIVE And there are those things that are no longer false but forced – sense-damaging, and body-damaging, and crime-producing drugs. CLOSING So, i would flip the question around and ask “What failure exists in any commons that other than outlier-individuals would seek refuge from the commons in physical, emotional, and mental escape, at the cost of socializatino, consumption, physical and mental help? How should we fix such a commons?