Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Had Bin Laden Been Hiding In Australia, Would The United States Have Trust Australia More Than Pakistan?

    Australia and Canada both suffer from extraordinary privileges that they attribute to their own actions or own beliefs rather than the windfall produced by their ancestor’s conquest of primitive lands, using science, guns, germs, steel, accounting, and rule of law.

    None of us take Australia or Canada any more seriously than we take the girl whose father pays for everything seriously. It’s nice that she gets to live that way but it has nothing to do with her or her judgements and everything to do with the aggressive use of dominance in business, industry, war and politics by her father and his father, and his before him.

    It’s actually painful to listen to Australians, Canadians, and american Urbanites, (As well as many urban brits). All trust fund babies trying to signal their high mindedness because they have no achievements to point to of their own.

    https://www.quora.com/Had-Bin-Laden-been-hiding-in-Australia-would-the-United-States-have-trust-Australia-more-than-Pakistan

  • Is It Possible To Have A Perfect Government And Make Everyone Happy?

    We had the perfect government: Monarchy, Multi-House Parliaments with one house per class, and the Common Law under Rule of law, under Nationalism (tribalism).

    The Monarch had only power of veto. The houses functioned as a market for trading commons between the different socio-economic classes. And an homogenous polity can act redistributively because everyone is a near relation (kin) and not a competitor.

    This is why the Nordic countries are as they are: small homogenous protestant nations that have practiced eugenic reproduction for more than a thousand years, and perhaps as long as 3500 years. They bypassed the empire phase during colonialism and so they did not develop state corporatism, and therefore the ability to commercially and militarily profit from heterogeneous polities.

    Nordic countries then produce the ideal because they are small homogenous eugenic nation states with common interests, little diversity, and lack the population, territorial, economic, and military scale needed to engage in conquest by immigration, territorial expansion, economic conquest, or military conquest.

    The dirty secret of the Human Genome project is that our tribes and races are vastly unequal, largely because some of our tribes and races have been better at suppressing the rates of reproduction of the lower classes (eugenics). And the reason is that the northern climates do not allow marginal individuals to survive under agrarianism. And that most northern peoples aggressively used hanging, delayed marriage and childbirth, regulated access to farmland to people of good character, and effectively engaged in active upward redistribution of reproduction.

    If you want a Denmark you need to fill it with Danes. The northeast of Europe developed “Bipartite Manorialism” earliest, and the church’s ban on cousin marriage the earliest, and that is one of the significant reasons for northern europe’s advantage.

    Why? Because while you need to reach the Pareto optimum of both 80% of resources in the control of your top 20%, AND your top 20% must have IQ’s above 106, this cannot be done by improving the intelligence of your best, but by by reducing the numbers of your worst, until your best are the top 20% of your population.

    This is counter-intuitive. But the point being that your lower classes are a tragic burden on your people.

    This is the dirty secret of the west’s success: we hung 1% of the population every year. Over twenty years, this has a profound effect. Over five hundred years it will raise a people out of ignorance and poverty.

    How can we do the same without hanging our troublemakers? We can do it by preventing their births.

    Otherwise there is no way to get to Denmark. And instead, under normative dysgenia we will decline just as the entire Arab world has declined under islam: through dysgenic reproduction, that depresses the reproduction of our best, and increases the reproduction of our worst.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Science and Uncomfortable Truth
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-have-a-perfect-government-and-make-everyone-happy

  • Is It Possible To Have A Perfect Government And Make Everyone Happy?

    We had the perfect government: Monarchy, Multi-House Parliaments with one house per class, and the Common Law under Rule of law, under Nationalism (tribalism).

    The Monarch had only power of veto. The houses functioned as a market for trading commons between the different socio-economic classes. And an homogenous polity can act redistributively because everyone is a near relation (kin) and not a competitor.

    This is why the Nordic countries are as they are: small homogenous protestant nations that have practiced eugenic reproduction for more than a thousand years, and perhaps as long as 3500 years. They bypassed the empire phase during colonialism and so they did not develop state corporatism, and therefore the ability to commercially and militarily profit from heterogeneous polities.

    Nordic countries then produce the ideal because they are small homogenous eugenic nation states with common interests, little diversity, and lack the population, territorial, economic, and military scale needed to engage in conquest by immigration, territorial expansion, economic conquest, or military conquest.

    The dirty secret of the Human Genome project is that our tribes and races are vastly unequal, largely because some of our tribes and races have been better at suppressing the rates of reproduction of the lower classes (eugenics). And the reason is that the northern climates do not allow marginal individuals to survive under agrarianism. And that most northern peoples aggressively used hanging, delayed marriage and childbirth, regulated access to farmland to people of good character, and effectively engaged in active upward redistribution of reproduction.

    If you want a Denmark you need to fill it with Danes. The northeast of Europe developed “Bipartite Manorialism” earliest, and the church’s ban on cousin marriage the earliest, and that is one of the significant reasons for northern europe’s advantage.

    Why? Because while you need to reach the Pareto optimum of both 80% of resources in the control of your top 20%, AND your top 20% must have IQ’s above 106, this cannot be done by improving the intelligence of your best, but by by reducing the numbers of your worst, until your best are the top 20% of your population.

    This is counter-intuitive. But the point being that your lower classes are a tragic burden on your people.

    This is the dirty secret of the west’s success: we hung 1% of the population every year. Over twenty years, this has a profound effect. Over five hundred years it will raise a people out of ignorance and poverty.

    How can we do the same without hanging our troublemakers? We can do it by preventing their births.

    Otherwise there is no way to get to Denmark. And instead, under normative dysgenia we will decline just as the entire Arab world has declined under islam: through dysgenic reproduction, that depresses the reproduction of our best, and increases the reproduction of our worst.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Science and Uncomfortable Truth
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-have-a-perfect-government-and-make-everyone-happy

  • What Are The Key Differences In Business Culture Between Western And Eastern?

    Sinic (Eastern) :

    Basis of Sinic philosophy is Sun Tzu: Deception and delay until opportunity to defeat. We are strongest when we have total control, and cannot be victimized by the other, and no longer need to compromise.

    Falsehood is expected.
    Preserve Face, avoiding offense.
    Information Hiding, is expected.
    Self benefit rather than symmetric benefit is not only expected but desirable.
    Decisions are made outside the room by those in authority.
    Agreements are temporarily useful for the moment, but open to revision and circumstance at all times.
    Differences are to be hidden until they can be used to produce asymmetric benefits.
    Disagreements are to be used as opportunities for asymmetric benefits.

    Corruption is expected and even ‘understood’.
    Asymmetric benefit is expected and ‘understood’
    Non Performance is expected, and ‘understood’.
    Changing the terms of the agreement is expected and ‘understood’.

    Germanic (Western):
    Basis of western philosophy is Aristotle: Truth, transparency, and cooperation leading to mutual benefit – we are strongest when we cooperate together, and we preserve our cooperation through constant compromise.

    Truth, even if unpleasant.
    Directness, even if offensive.
    Information transparency, even if disadvantageous.
    Objective is mutual benefit – and non parasitism, developing long term trust.
    Decisions are made in the room between the negotiators.
    Agreements are binding contracts not subject to revision or circumstance, even if risky.
    Resolve differences quickly, and move on.
    Disagreements must result in mutually beneficial compromise.

    Corruption is inexcusable.
    Asymmetric benefit is inexcusable.
    Non performance is inexcusable.
    Changing the terms of the agreement is inexcusable.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-in-business-culture-between-Western-and-Eastern

  • THE INCENTIVES OF A CIVILIZATION With the advent of the industrial revolution we

    THE INCENTIVES OF A CIVILIZATION

    With the advent of the industrial revolution we converted from a moral political philosophy – of accumulation – to a commercial one – of consumption.

    Instead of adding commercial consumption to moral accumulation, just as we failed to add a house of the commoners to the house of commercial producers, and the house of the territorial managers(lords), and the house of the territorial judge (kings).

    We replaced moral full accounting with pseudo-empirical, pseudoscientific selective accounting.

    We created excuses to justify our profits at the expense of the civilization, our ancestors, and all generations that follow.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-21 02:53:00 UTC

  • MY CLINTON FOUNDATION STORY We were asked to rescue a large project ‘funded’ by

    MY CLINTON FOUNDATION STORY

    We were asked to rescue a large project ‘funded’ by the clinton foundation, Microsoft, and the originators of the Greenhouse Gas movement.

    This project was ostensively managed by the person at Microsoft who was responsible for their advocacy of green ideas. (a man).

    This fellow used our ‘reciprocal’ relationship with Microsoft (our trust) to run up a $2M debt, by promising that he would ‘get the PO for the new funds, soon’. (Note that when you do many tens of millions of dollars with a client for decades, this is not an uncommon practice. Why? Because people cost money when they sit, cost more money to recruit again, so it’s better work on spec and help customers move paperwork thru their bureaucracies.)

    Now, it turns out that the clinton foundation had promised to split the costs with Microsoft, but never actually had any of the money. We found out that they’d hoped to guilt Microsoft into ‘donating’ to the cause, or experience negative press for not doing so. (Entrapping them.) Autodesk had suggested they might contribute if the project was a success and their tech was used in it. But this was represented to all parties as money in the bank.

    Now, I’m not going to get into how many high-fliers were involved in these discussions (Murdoch’s wife, various Clintonistas, people from Adobe, nearly everyone in the three central political players in the global warming movement, but you know, this wasn’t magic money. This was my money and my partner’s money we were dealing with. but everyone at the table was lying.) So I took the hard drives, backed them up, and put it all in a safe deposit box, until Microsoft legal asked us to give it to them. At which point it was dead tech. )

    This is about 1% of the information I could write down but you get the general idea. This is how these people work.

    And we were $2M poorer. I also spent an additional 200K+ of my own money trying to rescue it for the Global Warming people despite the fact that I actually opposed the state of the science. And I lost that because one of the people involved lied to me about his access to capital as well. What happened? Remember that November when it came out that the science was faked? That was our third month of operation on behalf of the Global Warming folks.

    So my view of the clinton organization is that it’s just another bunch of hacks trading political favors. My view of global warming / climate movement is colored by my knowledge of the players. My view of corporations is that they should stay out of the freaking sentimental business anyway, and do good by making and distributing profits, while doing no harm.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-20 05:07:00 UTC

  • ON A RELATED NOTE As an example, Skye and I have been friends for a long time. A

    ON A RELATED NOTE

    As an example, Skye and I have been friends for a long time. And I am keenly aware that his ‘senses’ find different experiential perspectives ‘interesting’ in the same way I find first causes interesting. In many ways I find myself very similar to Skye, in this one way very different. I actually CANT empathize with the experiential models, which is why i am sure I learned to look for the unifying principles that are common between them. I’m just aware that these differences in senses assist us in developing a division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

    How I interpret this difference is between the subjective understanding others, and objective understanding universal first causes. Is one superior to the other? I am more interested in the question whether it is easier to lie, decieve, and manipulate with one or the other. In the sense of suepriority these different ends of the spectrum are differeent tools for different purposes, and so neither is superior in sense of exploraiton and explanation.

    But when it comes to falsifying (decidability) the first cause defeats the subjective understanding.

    Individuals appreciate different aesthetic experiences, but as a group we must resolve differences by objective means (or rather we seem to prefer to, just as we prefer to have male craftsmen and bosses but female parents and peers.) We do so because understanding of the subjective experience of others helps us cooperate, and envison possibilities; and understanding of the objective content of the universe helps us act together to change that universe, and to resolve disputes between us.

    This is the diference between creativity and decidability. Between justification and criticism. Beween imagination and truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-20 02:53:00 UTC

  • The rise of the west was caused by greek thought – we forget that hellenic philo

    The rise of the west was caused by greek thought – we forget that hellenic philosophy began as an evolution of their pagan religion from a political to personal system of thought. Rome’s empiricism came from greek thought. The ‘golden age’ of islam was caused by the translation of greek works in bagdad during the Abbasid empire, and ended as soon as that translation effort failed, and, weakened by internal divisiveness (despite their book) the Mongols defeated them.

    In addition, the religion spread to a majority. In order to prevent further ‘westernization’ and further factionalism, they denied science and demanded that the prophet’s work was complete. A fifth to a quarter of the population was of slaves, and the arabs bred and legitimized children with the slave women.

    Now compare this with roman, post roman, common and continental law, as a basis for society, while at the same time, possessing a political semi-pagan religion, and a division of powers.

    The west’s philosophy is the common law and natural law. It’s rational and evolves due to empirical observation of the resolution of disputes. Science is likewise empirical.

    christianity is just a mask – a set of stories over the top of arianism. It gave the warriors an excuse. Just as islam gave her warriors an excuse.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-18 03:29:00 UTC

  • ELIMINATION OF ‘TAXES’. As far as I know the only ‘fee’ that produces no malince

    ELIMINATION OF ‘TAXES’.

    As far as I know the only ‘fee’ that produces no malincentives is a universal sales tax (a fee) on all activity within the market. I would prefer (myself) that prices included this fee as a percentage, and that it was totally transparent to everyone. I have fought with the idea that this ‘fee’ is collected and redistributed as inflation of the money supply through direct redistribution (dilution) rather than through credit and interest. As long as the rate is relatively predictable then I don’t see the any informational reason why it wouldn’t work – or why we should pay interest to third parties who merely accumulate capital via this inflationary process.

    The only reason we don’t do this is because we can’t trust the government to leave our fees constant, or to buy votes with the use of these fees. This is again a fixable problem if we use direct economic democracy for the provision of commons and do not make use of representatives. Moreover, we would have to participate as houses since at any given time a decreasing minority of the population is productive.

    As for local improvements, I don’t see why we pool this money as taxes rather than apportion a debt and pay it off one way or the other – maintaining operational calculability, and eliminating political discretion. I assume most people would simply let the debt accumulate on their property and pay it when they transferred (sold) it. Again this is preventable.

    Do we really need drivers license fees? Do we really need income taxes or income tax forms? Do we really need to conduct campaigns and decide on character, rather than to post ideas and decide upon which ones we want to pay for? No. No we don’t.

    Voting for individuals is another error of aggregation. Just as Keynesian economics is an error of aggregation – an admission that we do not understand, and are ‘winging it’. They are excuses to make us think we have influence and decision rather than the truth that we are farmed like other domesticated animals.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 05:58:00 UTC

  • DEBATE VS PROSECUTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMONS OF LIBERTY. (important)(I

    DEBATE VS PROSECUTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMONS OF LIBERTY.

    (important)(If you read one article on liberty today, read this one)

    The purpose of the DEBATE is to convince the audience – the audience is the judge. Ergo, debate is a political activity in which we seek to inform, persuade, and judge a question of commons.

    Individuals argue, persuade, or discuss – engage in personal exchange, even if this exchange is only knowledge.

    Prosecutors and Defendants attempt to defeat their opponents on grounds of harm – not the determination of a good – whether personal or common good.

    While exchange may require consent, and while opinion on debate in the commons may or may not, prosecution does not. In fact, the purpose of prosecution is to pursue the truth regardless of the desires of the parties prosecuted.

    The technique I have been developing is not one in which we assume (as does Hoppe) that parties have honest, ethical, moral, intentions, and that if we dislike anything whatsoever we can walk away from and let them do damage elsewhere – but that it is only after we prosecute their arguments in an attempt to see if they survive attempts at parasitism, that we can engage in exchange of ideas – and if not that we must not let them do damage elsewhere, and to demand restitution(recant) or punishment(shame) for their propositions.

    This is the difference between the ‘libertarians’ who do not pay the cost of defending the commons, and those of us who desire the commons of a condition of liberty, and as such are willing to pay the high cost of constructing and maintaining the commons of liberty.

    Now, I don’t generally engage in debate. I start from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. I want to know how the other person is engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, or deceit. If they are not engaging in those things then their argument survives, and we can then conduct a negotiation, discourse, conversation. I start with the assumption that all men seek to justify their parasitisms, and that liberty is constructed only when we forcibly suppress all parasitism, leaving only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive(non-parasitic) externalities.

    That this metaphysical value judgement – the difference between the attempt to escape responsibility for the commons while demanding its fruits, and the necessity of taking responsibility for the commons in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty – is where ‘libertarians’ err.

    All that remains is to determine whether I am correct, and that this intuition of free riding on the commons, rather than constructing the commons, is produced by genetic consequence, normative consequence, or both.

    At present, given only personal experience (because I have not yet found any data other than the pattern of argument in history, it certainly appears to be ‘both’.)

    So while I do love, respect, and believe most ‘libertarians’ to be honest men, they are engaged in the argumentative support of a metaphysical value judgement like that of diasporic traders, migratory shepherds, and domestic slaves: free riding upon the commons while demanding liberty that can only be produced as a commons where words – like deeds, like property – are all not just respected, but vigorously DEFENDED.

    In other words, people insufficiently domesticated that while they may engage in exchange, and may engage in animal husbandry, or engaging in hunting and gathering, they still are not engaging in production, and in fact are engaged in the same parasitism against the commons that their ancestors engaged upon the land as hunter gatherers, and as pastoralists, and as slaves, as gypsies, as roving merchants, and finally as credit money financial capitalists. All of these people may engage in trade, but they maintain parasitism upon the territorial and normative, and often, genetic commons.

    Therefore,

    Every man a Craftsman,

    Every man a Warrior,

    Every man a Juror.

    Every man a Sheriff,

    Every man a Prosecutor,

    Every man a Judge.

    Every man a Sovereign.

    That is the only construction under which a condition of liberty is possible.

    There are no free rides. You cannot walk away from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, any more than you can walk away from corruption, fraud, theft, violence, and murder.

    Liberty is built by the actions of men who deny others **all** alternatives. Prosecution, Like Property, Like Truth, is a high tax to pay for liberty. But it is the only means by which liberty can be brought into existence: actions that cost us.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 03:40:00 UTC