Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ELI HARMAN – STATE ACTION The allegation is often made (by libertarian anarchist

    ELI HARMAN – STATE ACTION

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-31 01:55:00 UTC

  • WHY WE FAILED. All men are comprehensible. All men are rational within their lim

    WHY WE FAILED.

    All men are comprehensible.

    All men are rational within their limits.

    And as rational we choose what is in our interests whether moral or immoral.

    And we create institutions that increase the cost of the immoral.

    So that it is rational to choose the moral.

    The problem of the twentieth century is that we eliminated the normative prohibition on libel, slander, ridicule, shaming, rallying, lying, pseudoscience, and propaganda.

    And caused the industrialisation of profiting from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, rallying, shaming, and deceit.

    The reason for our failure is visible in retrospect as an inability to switch from traditional and moral justification in societies with relationships at human scale, to warranty of due diligence by thorough criticism of statements pertaining to cause and consequence when relationships exceeded human scale under the industrial revolution.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 10:26:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUAGES OF FRAUD When you defend your use of philosophical rationalism, yo

    THE LANGUAGES OF FRAUD

    When you defend your use of philosophical rationalism, your presupposition is the disproportionate value of the communication of meaning(learning), under which we obtain explanatory power and opportunity for persuasion and negotiation; whereas you discount or ignore the equal value of prosecution(prevention), under which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    It would be all well and good to speak only with ‘good manners’ of positive language, if all men were of manners, ethics, morals, humility, study, achievement, and intelligence. But the central problem of our age – since the industrial revolution – has not been the communication of meaning within the limits of human perception, but the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, now that our action and our institutions can reach beyond the manners and prosecution of the ill-mannered, at human scale.

    So you may wish to hold to the language of the primitive technologies of reason and meaning, just as others may wish to hold to the primitive technologies of theology and mysticism. But theology consists of little other than parable (analogy) for the purpose of discourse within the limits of pre-existing authority. And Rationalism consists of little other than a subset of reason for the purpose of discourse under the assumption of good intention and good character, independent of cost, and evidence, in order to obscure the cunning and deceit used to impose one’s will upon others by the pretense of truthfulness which is little more than selection bias.

    In other words, if you wish to speak truthfully, you can communicate by analogy, if and only if you equally criticize by correspondence (truth), such that both the properties necessary for communication but untrue under criticism, and the persuasions necessary for stating preference, but untrue under criticism, and the error, bias, and deceit that we frail humans rely upon in lieu of truthful argument that are untrue under criticism, are laundered and exposed.

    Men do not seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument because they possess good manners, good ethics, good morals, good actions, and because we have good institutions.

    Men seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument for the simple reason that they want what they want, by whatever argumentative means is available, and by one cunning argumentative deception or another, they hope to escape blame for their acts of fraud, under pretense of mannered, ethical, moral, and knowing argument.

    If you cannot speak in operational language, categorically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent, with scope consistency, then either you do not know how to, do not want to pay the costs of speaking truthfully, or if you spoke truthfully your fraud would be obvious.

    Religion and Philosophy have been disproportionately the source of deception, conflict, and war. Whereas law and science have been disproportionately the source of truth.

    If you cannot speak in the language of law and science, we can almost without exception assume that you are speaking in the league of fraud. And it is only after we pay the high cost of translating you use of the languages of fraud into the languages of law and science that we can determine whether you engage in fraud or engage in error, or engage in linguistic habit because you simply know no better.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 02:26:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN? Sorry religious folk, but religious language is

    THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN?

    Sorry religious folk, but religious language is a language of men, not god – science and mathematics are the language of god. Religious law is the command of men, not god – natural law discovered by science is the law of god. Heaven is not created by god, but created by men – it is nature that we domesticate for our use that produces paradise in a universe that is hostile to us. Prophets were not speaking the word of god, but spinning stories by men for the control and manipulation of the ignorant. There is nothing found in the lies of the prophets that cannot be stated truthfully in the language of god: Math, Scientific Truth Natual Law, Physical Law, created by god, put into the minds of man through his discovery, and put to work by the hand of man because of that discovery. God wrote to us with reality. He does not speak to us. We can only read his writings in the fabric of the universe.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 02:02:00 UTC

  • Back when I thought AI had a lot of promise I created a bit of software that use

    Back when I thought AI had a lot of promise I created a bit of software that used emotions. (a Tank). I stored memories as problems, actions, and consequences, each as symbols referencing other symbols constructed from limited operations and ‘feelings’.

    (I was not in favor of neural networks which i saw as useful in creating symbols but unnecessary if we already can work in symbols. )

    I think google is doing an interesting job of associations but I don’t see those associations reduced to operations and changes in property, and the corresponding emotions, which is what would be necessary to produce a sympathetic intelligence.

    It wasn’t until much later I understood that it’s property that’s the unit of commensurability and recipes that transform states as just another set of actions.

    And it wasnt until a friend at MSFT told me about using manifolds as data structures that I began to see how all of this would fit together.

    I see at least three avenues to AI. We all prefer the one we understand. And I think it will be a sony-betamax problem of we invent what is useful but not best. And this will delay us in getting to best, because it requires a lot of infrastructure to produce these components and we will have to exhaust that venue before we try an alternative.

    That’s what I think I see happening.

    I’m the only one working with property. although some bit-coin nut might stumble across it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 11:03:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE?

    ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these:

    1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference.

    3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception.

    4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions.

    5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse.

    (I work in public as an experient and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 08:36:00 UTC

  • ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the p

    ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these:

    1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference.

    3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception.

    4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions.

    5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse.

    (I work in public as an experient and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 08:35:00 UTC

  • A LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN IN THE MEANING OF CHARACTER (important lesson) When an

    A LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN IN THE MEANING OF CHARACTER

    (important lesson)

    When an average middle aged Ukrainian male gets the opportunity to talk with an American man who does not judge him, (and who has a laptop for translation) he acts like a man who has found water in the desert. He just wants “to understand”. But really, he want’s to know that he is ‘ok’. That his poor life is a property of circumstance, and not character. (it is a product of circumstance)

    When a young Ukrainian male gets the opportunity to speak with us, he desperately seeks opportunity.

    When a young Ukrainian female gets the opportunity to speak with us, it’s not quite as impressive, since she probably worked very hard to learn English.

    When an uncultured young Ukrainian female gets the opportunity to speak with us, she is looking for an ATM and a Passport.

    These people are deprived of EXPERIENCES that fiat credit makes possible in a functioning society with rule of law.

    I love all of them, and my compassion for their plight is endless.

    LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN

    The Ukrainian men are poor, and their government corrupt, because the militant right is simply not large enough, to kill enough politicians to stop them.

    There are endless mercenaries who will fight a civil war on behalf of the oligarchs. (This is the fear of everyone here. civil war.)

    There are a limited number of men (like us) in every civilization, that will fight for the NATION.

    If you do not fight for the nation, you become one of those middle and late age men thinking you were of good character.

    BUT BEING OF GOOD CHARACTER MEANS KILLING THOSE WHO NEED KILLING ON THE BEHALF OF YOUR NATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 04:54:00 UTC

  • THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient”, a

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT

    The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient”, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless”. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities.

    MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC

    The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language.

    We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground.

    The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does.

    But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years.

    We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing’, the honest call it ‘domesticating’, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry’: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce.

    The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility.

    THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES

    The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership:

    CLASSES:

    NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class)

    – Propertarianism (That’s me)

    – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization)

    THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class)

    – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics)

    – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class

    – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture

    – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability.

    – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies

    THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class)

    – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there)

    – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there)

    – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful)

    – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really)

    REACTION (criticism) (middle class)

    – Moldbug

    – Ramzpaul

    ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness)

    – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites

    – Meme-Makers and Trolls

    THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working)

    – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 08:18:00 UTC

  • TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS. Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types

    TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS.

    Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types), but that I describe spectra from limit to limit?

    So I might say Natural Law, but I repeat the NPP at every opportunity: “Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria”. By repetition, I state the precise definition of natural law: the law of cooperation.

    Then I make sure I state the inverse of natural law, the means of violating it: “murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, and conquest.”

    And when I talk about falsehood, I use the means of conducting it: “error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.”

    When I talk of philosophy, I use metaphysics(action), psychology, epistemology, sociology, ethics, economics, morality, Law and Politics, group competitive strategy, and religion/war/immigration.

    In other words, I try to show by repetition the difference between the many verbal fallacies that arise from the use of ideal types (analogies) that are corrected by the use of spectra and limits.

    This eliminates many of the ‘weasel words’ that fallacious arguments depend upon. But more importantly it teaches people how to think in more dimensions than we desire to. Just as we want to train people to think intertemporally rather than impulsively or temporally, we want to to train others and ourselves to think in high causal density with precision.

    Humans want simple answers they want a single axis of causality. But almost nothing we do is not caused by multiple axis (spectra) operating in multiple supply and demand curves.

    Now, you can see what most people do is reach for a word that they don’t understand but sounds more sophisticated. This is almost always nonsense. Instead, create a ‘proof’. If you write a spectrum you are writing a ‘proof’ of meaning. You are describing what something MUST MEAN, not what you imagine it means from colloquial usage.

    So when you want to use a term, write out the spectrum from beginning to end, and instead of using the term, enumerate the sequence, over, and over, again. You will refine it over time. And it will be very difficult for you, and for others to err by the use of ‘loose analogy’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:51:00 UTC