Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits hi

    MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL

    Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation.

    Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:28:00 UTC

  • Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The differen

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. GIven that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

    The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outast’s one’s lifetime ,and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 08:02:00 UTC

  • The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of th

    The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of the population voting. Why? because the size of the population increases the diversity of interests. And because democracy allows us only to choose between priorities from within common interest – it’s a monopolistic means of choosing which commons to produce. So when we increase in scale, we require markets to conduct exchanges between different common interests, not monopolies, to ignore our uncommon interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 05:55:00 UTC

  • “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast” Doolittle: Man

    “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast”

    Doolittle: Man is a purely rational actor having to constantly choose between the short personal gratification at the expense of others and long term gratification through cooperation with others. With the optimum solution for both short and long term is to achieve personal perfection without causing retaliation by others that would destroy those ambitions.

    Most of us struggle in one way or another with the constant problem of achievement without causing retaliation (rejection, resistance, restitution, punishment).

    And at the same time we struggle with internal impulse and the impatient desire to achieve our ends and the frustration of having to worry about others rather than only the self.

    Nietzche uses romantic, poetic, narrative language to make this rather boring statement of cooperative economics. But by using that ancient primitive poetic language he fails to inform us as to the cause. And given that cause how to succeed.

    Hence why I say that Nietzche and propertarianism are compatible. The question is WHICH IS MORE ACTIONABLE? Read him for inspiration and integration with your soul. Choose Propertarianism as the means of achieving it.

    In retrospect I see my work as succeeding where spencer failed. We had Darwin and Nietzche, but because of competition from the ‘new age’ provided by marx economically pseudoscientifiic and immoral Marx and immoral and correlative pseudoscientific keynes, the generation that included Spencer, pareto, weber and durkheim, and the generation that included Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, and Bridgman all failed.

    THey failed for the same reason the Greeks failed: they worked from the position of virtue and morality (contribution to commons) instead of simply grasping the reductio simplicity of man: we are all rational actors and choose cooperation when beneficial, and non-cooperation when it is beneficial, and we judge all our actions by the cost vs the likely return, given our experience. Man is not moral per se, he just evolved intuitions to assist him if he DOES wish to act morally because it is in his interest, and he must be cautioned that he will incur retaliation if he acts immorally by imposing costs upon others.

    So we understand man’s behavior as purely rational, and moral intuitions as warnings that we are likely to incurr retaliation for our actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 03:02:00 UTC

  • BRITISH ADVOCACY OF ENLARGEMENT WAS STRATEGIC. OPEN BORDERS WERE FOLLY —The UK

    BRITISH ADVOCACY OF ENLARGEMENT WAS STRATEGIC. OPEN BORDERS WERE FOLLY

    —The UK campaigned for enlargement of the EU. Before enlargement, ask for by the UK, there was no issue with open borders.—@ghg @William Thayer Sr

    (RE: Enlargement)

    The US/UK partnership is still the only meaningful military of the west – and the USA(Air/Sea/Oil), and UK(Credit Markets) have a worldwide perspective on protecting western interests.

    In the “Enlargement” the Anglo hope was to increase market size and collective security. Open borders became a problem only when the strategic expansion, market expansion, and monetary expansion, was not accompanied by mobility limits.

    There is no need for the conflation of family commons, local commons, national commons, civilizational commons. In fact, that is that’s the problem.

    We could certainly use expansion to bring capital to people (good), but not people to capital (bad). Why? Because the family, local, and national commons are consumed rapidly by the migration of people. Whereas the movement of capital to people preserves if not expands the family, local, national commons, but EXPORTS it from where it is, to where it is needed.

    The difference in the economic performance of states is almost entirely the product of the behavior of its people and the institutions produced by those people.

    Open borders is a very bad idea. Look at the damage it has done to Americans. Americans who will have their own ‘exits’ in rebellion against the (catastrophic) error of universalism.

    Do you want to know the painful science behind our success? The dirty secret of the 21st century? The west was the most eugenically suppressive civilization in history both because of our climate, farming techniques, manorialism, delayed marriage, aggressive hanging of half of a percent of the population by year, and constant culling of the underclasses by tribal, civil, and aristocratic warfare. Those regions of Europe that adopted bipartite manorialism as early as the 700s are today still the most prosperous. We can predict economic productivity by the Hanjal Line: where it was enforced. Holland objectively has the best genes because they’ve spent the longest eliminating the bad ones.

    Without similar processes, the fate of Europe under third world invasion, will be the fate of India having failed at controlling reproduction, the fate of Islam from immigration and inbreeding with African slaves, the fate of Greece, southern Italy and southern Spain, and the fate of south America because of asymmetric reproduction of the classes.

    That’s the painful truth of it.

    And British moral dandyism is just post-empire status signaling evolving into a fetish. One can shame another by demonstrating British ‘high minded moral perfectionism’, as little more than the magician’s ‘prestige’ is used to hide his slight of hand.

    Both British false-moralism and the magician’s prestige are signals that are meant to obscure that the Briton does nothing to protect the accumulated western commons from consumption, and the magician does everything to believe he is performing magic, rather than a parlor trick that takes advantage of human cognitive biases.

    Nations, like good families, matter.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-25 11:11:00 UTC

  • Conservatives Cannot Be Honest Under Democracy

    Why? Conservatism is a eugenic social order. And the ‘good’ families are dwarfed in number by the ‘not good’ families. Western success is due in no small part to its adoption of eugenic institutions and policies in every walk of life. Puritan american was an attempt to create a eugenic civilization.
    But America, like every other attempt at creating a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient understanding of the reasons for the west’s rise; insufficient honesty in its constitution; and insufficient violence to preserve it. And this is why traditionalism and conservatism in all their variations have failed. Conservatism is a deterministically eugenic social, political, legal, and economic system that arose in the era of productive scarcity. Majoritarian democracy, redistributive socialism, and feminism are deterministically dysgenic social, political, legal, and economic systems that arose in the era of productive plenty. Western eugenics were negative: constraining the lower classes and devoting resources to the reproduction of the middle and upper classes. They were not positive in any sense: arranged breeding. This conflation of negative eugenics and positive eugenics is what brought an end to the movement. Even if medically induced positive eugenics is probably a future we can assume will expand. Assuming that we must preserve the means of constructing commons, and assuming we want to preserve prosperity and western creativity, we have two choices: we can either remove the franchise from the non-producers and restore the family to the central object of policy, or we can construct houses for the production of commons that once again reflect that interests of the genders and classes. The first will create an oligarchy open to corruption. The second will create a market whereby genders and classes cannot impose costs upon one another without benefit in exchange. If we fail to do the second, we will be forced to do the first. And if we fail to do the first, we will no longer exist as a civilization. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, UKraine
    Like
    Like
    Love
    Haha
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    Comment

  • Conservatives Cannot Be Honest Under Democracy

    Why? Conservatism is a eugenic social order. And the ‘good’ families are dwarfed in number by the ‘not good’ families. Western success is due in no small part to its adoption of eugenic institutions and policies in every walk of life. Puritan american was an attempt to create a eugenic civilization.
    But America, like every other attempt at creating a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient understanding of the reasons for the west’s rise; insufficient honesty in its constitution; and insufficient violence to preserve it. And this is why traditionalism and conservatism in all their variations have failed. Conservatism is a deterministically eugenic social, political, legal, and economic system that arose in the era of productive scarcity. Majoritarian democracy, redistributive socialism, and feminism are deterministically dysgenic social, political, legal, and economic systems that arose in the era of productive plenty. Western eugenics were negative: constraining the lower classes and devoting resources to the reproduction of the middle and upper classes. They were not positive in any sense: arranged breeding. This conflation of negative eugenics and positive eugenics is what brought an end to the movement. Even if medically induced positive eugenics is probably a future we can assume will expand. Assuming that we must preserve the means of constructing commons, and assuming we want to preserve prosperity and western creativity, we have two choices: we can either remove the franchise from the non-producers and restore the family to the central object of policy, or we can construct houses for the production of commons that once again reflect that interests of the genders and classes. The first will create an oligarchy open to corruption. The second will create a market whereby genders and classes cannot impose costs upon one another without benefit in exchange. If we fail to do the second, we will be forced to do the first. And if we fail to do the first, we will no longer exist as a civilization. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, UKraine
    Like
    Like
    Love
    Haha
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    Comment

  • THE HUMAN ARGUMENT SPECTRUM. Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal t

    THE HUMAN ARGUMENT SPECTRUM.

    Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human.

    And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse.

    Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention.

    We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.)

    It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions.

    But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions.

    We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life.

    In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack).

    Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli.

    Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes.

    Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic).

    This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response).

    This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon.

    But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud.

    It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand.

    And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results.

    So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules.

    And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality.

    All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism.

    So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science.

    Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony.

    Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal.

    And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties.

    So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars?

    Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails.

    So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific.

    When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter.

    Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions.

    And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act.

    And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds.

    So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility.

    It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence.

    But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description.

    CLOSING

    I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages.

    There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology.

    It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud.

    I hope this was helpful to you in some way.

    It’s a very important set of ideas.

    We do what we have the knowledge to do.

    We do what we have the energy and resources to do.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-24 00:24:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES CANNOT BE HONEST UNDER DEMOCRACY Why? Conservatism is a eugenic so

    CONSERVATIVES CANNOT BE HONEST UNDER DEMOCRACY

    Why? Conservatism is a eugenic social order. And the ‘good’ families are dwarfed in number by the ‘not good’ families.

    Western success is due in no small part to its adoption of eugenic institutions and policies in every walk of life. Puritan american was an attempt to create a eugenic civilization.

    But America, like every other attempt at creating a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient understanding of the reasons for the west’s rise; insufficient honesty in its constitution; and insufficient violence to preserve it.

    And this is why traditionalism and conservatism in all their variations have failed. Conservatism is a deterministically eugenic social, political, legal, and economic system that arose in the era of productive scarcity.

    Majoritarian democracy, redistributive socialism, and feminism are deterministically dysgenic social, political, legal, and economic systems that arose in the era of productive plenty.

    Western eugenics were negative: constraining the lower classes and devoting resources to the reproduction of the middle and upper classes. They were not positive in any sense: arranged breeding. This conflation of negative eugenics and positive eugenics is what brought an end to the movement. Even if medically induced positive eugenics is probably a future we can assume will expand.

    Assuming that we must preserve the means of constructing commons, and assuming we want to preserve prosperity and western creativity, we have two choices: we can either remove the franchise from the non-producers and restore the family to the central object of policy, or we can construct houses for the production of commons that once again reflect that interests of the genders and classes. The first will create an oligarchy open to corruption. The second will create a market whereby genders and classes cannot impose costs upon one another without benefit in exchange.

    If we fail to do the second, we will be forced to do the first. And if we fail to do the first, we will no longer exist as a civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, UKraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-23 05:31:00 UTC

  • The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.