Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ON COMMISSIONS FOR SALESPEOPLE: GOOD OR BAD? In the “commissions work vs commiss

    ON COMMISSIONS FOR SALESPEOPLE: GOOD OR BAD?

    In the “commissions work vs commissions don’t work” argument, I look at the problem this way:

    1) Commissions are either unproductive, or completely fraudulent in attempts to sell uncompetitive products and services.

    2) Commissions (or bonuses) are productive for distributing effort between product and service lines. In other words, setting priorities in the attainment of results, not producing results in and of themselves.

    3) Commissions very often produce behavior not in the customer interest.

    4) Commissions are a good way of ‘hiding’ very high salaries.

    5) In my experience salaries must be sufficient and commissions must be bonuses for going the extra mile, not necessities.

    6) Businesses vary between few customers retained for years, and many customers retained for a single transaction. Commissions produced short sighted behavior in long term relationships. They are really just a way of justifying the high salary that salespeople who manage high revenue accounts deserve.

    7) As a CEO and Sales Manager I tend to look at every opportunity by it’s total portfolio value, and I try to maintain a revenue stream. I prefer to teach people to do the same.

    (personally, I have found that they make zero difference in my behavior since I do not change my behavior at all. I will kill it if I can and not waste time on it if I can’t. All commissions do is cloud my judgement. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 07:02:00 UTC

  • The difference between educated Ukrainians and Americans is limited to the aware

    The difference between educated Ukrainians and Americans is limited to the awareness of political corruption, the experience of the trustworthiness of others, and the competence of middle and upper management. This leads entrepreneurs in the Ukraine to ‘think small’ because it requires a smaller network of trust. It leads americans to ‘think big’ because they can rely on large networks of trust.

    Just as say, americans think brits are obsessed with procedure (the movie Brazil is more documentary than fiction), and procedure is a method of not-caring about the interests and incentives of others, and limiting the sphere of one’s concerns, Ukrainians have this low-trust, cash-economy, where they are obsessed with small transactions.

    We forget that all of this western ‘magic’ works because we were raised with the Oath in one way or another, and our ‘priesthood’ of judges protects that oath.

    We forget that that oath arises from membership in the militia (warriors, men), we take upon ascension in to manhood.

    There is no commitment higher than this oath.

    That is the secret to the western rates of progress in each era.

    We simply ‘calculate’ faster than other groups.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 06:27:00 UTC

  • BRITISH/AMERICAN/GERMAN CULTURAL RULES Left the video on, and ended up listening

    BRITISH/AMERICAN/GERMAN CULTURAL RULES

    Left the video on, and ended up listening to Brits debate policy all night, and it is very clear that there is a difference between the moral structure of British argument and the LEGAL structure of american argument. In my dreams I kept arguing with people about the use of nonsense words. There is also a very great difference between the British fascination with procedure and moral righteousness defending it, and american fascination with law, and punishment for transgressions. Again, this illustrates the great difference between British abstract moral, American articulate legal, and German duty/empirical Cultures. A procedural person always seeks a process even though people do not follow those processes they follow rational incentives. An american seeks to understand incentives so that we produce the right rewards and punishments. Germans TRAIN YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY to know your duty and practice it, and to be intolerant of those who don’t.

    I won’t get into what jewish philosophy says, but it is translatable to “Whatever you can get someone else to agree to – damn the consequences or externalities.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-29 04:13:00 UTC

  • There is a difference between being educated and well read. I loved my education

    There is a difference between being educated and well read. I loved my education. But I am just well read. I don’t consider myself well educated. Possibly the opposite. And it is apparent to me that jayman, hbdchick, and I could never work in the academy. Look what happened to Hoppe and McDonald.

    I’ve been pondering today how to talk about the differences in decidability at each level of argument. And how this relates to each deviation in intelligence.

    People make the arguments they can. They understand the arguments they can.

    People practice the ethics they can. Because those are the ethics they understand.

    The information in these different methods may be indifferent. But the information required of individuals increases. And the information in the method of a regiment decreases.

    Ergo simple people need myth and highly knowledgeable people need theory or formula.

    This statement is expressing able as a mathematical relationship where the individual’s information, induvidual’s ability, and argumentative information vary proportionally.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-27 10:06:00 UTC

  • If we rule by rule of law, natural law (property), and provide sufficient law to

    If we rule by rule of law, natural law (property), and provide sufficient law to eliminate demand for authority (property in toto), and we build and enforce a market for commons, where all agreements assent, unless countered by dissent, then we have no rule, per se, only natural law.

    Other than sheriffs, judges, and generals I do not see the need for rule per say, or government per se, only the need for a market for commons, and rituals and procedures to persist them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 09:03:00 UTC

  • THE METHOD OF SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION —” the drift away from constituti

    THE METHOD OF SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION

    —” the drift away from constitutional legitimacy is not just the result of incompetence or confusion. There is a faction which has tended to dominate the federal government, especially during most of the 20th century, which has deliberately sought to extend precedents beyond the bounds of original constitutional understanding. It has done this by carefully selecting cases against weak or inadequately represented defendants, appealing only those cases they are sure they will win, and framing the arguments so that the judges often don’t have a choice that is constitutional, but must choose between two unconstitutional positions. Ordinarily this is supposed to be guarded against by constitutionally protective parties filing amicus curiae briefs to argue a strict constructionist position, but such briefs are not always filed in important cases, or are often ignored by the court.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 06:26:00 UTC

  • WE ADVOCATE HUMAN RIGHTS, ARE WE RESTORING IMPERIALISM? Lets first state that th

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=34703609WHEN WE ADVOCATE HUMAN RIGHTS, ARE WE RESTORING IMPERIALISM?

    Lets first state that the question itself is stated as a deceit. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. ) The correct phrasing of such a question is:

    “Is the Human Rights Initiative an extension of Imperialism?”

    1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation. Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy. Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior. So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

    2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest. In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

    In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order. The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

    3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors. And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

    So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 02:18:00 UTC

  • RESTORING LIBERTY Restoring Liberty required that I restore the requirement for

    RESTORING LIBERTY

    Restoring Liberty required that I restore the requirement for violence.

    To possess Liberty requires the ability to construct it against desires of the naturally parasitic hordes, and to maintain it in the face of their over reproduction and temporal consumption.

    For one cannot posess a condition of Liberty by permission. And without the ability to use violence to require forcibly create and maintain Liberty one cannot possess Liberty but only permission.

    So this is the purpose of my emphasis on violence. Our efforts to first seize power from the martial aristocracy, then to justify our commercial colonialism, then to mollify our women, then to allow virtue signaling by the academy, state, and media’s recruitment of the immoral hordes, resulted in the incremental loss of our violence, our Liberty, and our civilization.

    We must rule. If not out of moral obligation to the rest of humanity that is incapable of it, but our if nothing more than self defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 01:21:00 UTC

  • Are Human Rights Neo-imperialism?

    Lets first state that the question itself is stated uses improper loading and framing. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. )  A better phrasing of such a question is:

    “Is the Human Rights Movement an extension of Western Imperialism?”

    1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation.  Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy.  Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior.  So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

    2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest.  In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

    In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order.  The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

    3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors.  And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

    So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism

  • Are Human Rights Neo-imperialism?

    Lets first state that the question itself is stated uses improper loading and framing. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. )  A better phrasing of such a question is:

    “Is the Human Rights Movement an extension of Western Imperialism?”

    1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation.  Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy.  Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior.  So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

    2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest.  In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

    In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order.  The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

    3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors.  And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

    So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism