Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED. In other words, Spencer

    Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED.

    In other words, Spencer used observation, evolution and incentives to explain the world of man. He practiced ‘praxeological’ reasoning not as an excuse maker like rothbard did: to justify what should be different. But Spencer used ‘praxeological’ reasoning to explain why people do what they do.

    ***This is the best example of the difference between the jewish cosmopolitan justificationary method of trying to construct law as a set of commands in order to act in discord with nature, versus the anglo enlightenment empirical method of observing and explaining what exists in nature – and how to act in accord with nature.***

    I work this way also. I find some empirical thing. I do my research. I try to explain it as a series of operations. If I can then that’s a truth candidate. If I can’t then it isn’t.

    What I do NOT do, is engage in the 20th century fallacy of correlation, unless I can also determine causation.

    Statistics assist us in hypothesizing. Actions tell us truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 04:39:00 UTC

  • RATIONALIZING MYERS-BRIGGS AND BIG5 (AND PROPERTARIANISM) 1) —“The Myers-Brigg

    RATIONALIZING MYERS-BRIGGS AND BIG5 (AND PROPERTARIANISM)

    1) —“The Myers-Briggs rests on wholly unproven theories”—

    Well, it rests on observation of demonstrated motivations. So does all of psychology, and all of sociology, both of which are demonstrably pseudoscience created as pseudosciences by Boaz, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, Freud, Cantor, Adorno’s Crew, and Mises, as an alternative to Darwin, Spencer, and the Marginalists in Economics. In fact, it appears that almost everything written by each of these authors is a fabrication of wishful thinking correspondent with reality. Right now we are in the process of overthrowing keynesianism because of its externalities. Hayek suggested that the twentieth century would be remembered as a new era of mysticism (which we call pseudoscience today). He was right.

    But all that said, the MBTI rests on a subset of observed preferences in behavior. These preferences exist, and are demonstrated in the work place.

    2) —“The Myers-Briggs provides inconsistent, inaccurate results”—

    So does a Big5 of 30-100 questions.

    A 20 question IQ test is however, pretty predictive. What does this mean? It is easier to measure intelligence, harder to measure neuroticism(big5), and harder yet to measure work behavior.

    The results are inaccurate because (a) there are too few questions, (b) most people don’t fit into an exact block but around the edges of one (c) the ‘dimensions’ being tested are difficult to test – and most importantly to test ‘positively’ (meaning without asking the survey taker to be too self critical.)

    The problem is that for a test of this nature to produce accurate results it must consist of something on the order of 600 questions, about one sixth of which detect lies, or uncertainties. MB is ‘good enough’ that over time one can take the simple test, evolve greater undrestanding of one’s self, and ‘narrow down’ one’s score.

    On the other hand the Big 5 judges these properties:

    a) Openness (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)

    b) Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)

    c) Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)

    d) Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached)

    e) Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

    These are DIAGNOSTIC categories that DO correspond loosely to what we understand may be brain functions.

    It should be fairly obvious to people that these spectrum can easily be mapped to the MBTI (See Attached table). And this table will tell you all that you need to know:

    i) MBTI Does not test for neuroticism – which we can consider good or bad. I consider it good because there is no way to spin it ‘good’ in all cases. But I believe this is one reason for variation between the two procedures.

    ii) There is very high correlation between:

    Extroversion-Introversion /Extroversion (.7)

    and

    Sensing-INtuiting/Openness, (.7)

    ….and less but still significant correlation between

    Thinking(criticizing)-Feeling(empathizing)/Agreeableness (.4)

    and

    Judging-Perceiving/Conscientiousness. (.5)

    As I understand it, the difference between Big5 and MBTI models is that TF and JP are heavily influenced by Neuroticism(insecurity vs confidence), and this is not accounted for in the brevity of the MBTI test.

    Ironically the MBTI axis of Judging(organizing) – Perceiving(Iterative) probably MORE predictive and useful than the Conscientiousness measure, since I am fairly sure the Big 5 model is incorrectly diagnosing what is an important part of our division of cognition. I always pair myself with and INTJ. Why? I will absolutely figure it out, no matter what it is. The INTJ will absolutely positively get it done, no matter what, and I won’t. This method of thinking is not directly visible in the Big5

    So the truth is that GIVEN THE CORRELATIONS and given that we are testing for very subtle differences, it is EXTREMELY hard to claim that the MBTI fails without saying the Big5 also fails.

    Except that the MBTI teaches you to understand how to work with people in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, and the big5 teaches you what is WRONG with people in some strange freudian utopia where there is an ideal type of person. And it is this fundamental totalitarian error of Freudianism that is buried in the Big5: the ideal type: one-ness. Universalism. Equality. Ideal. Whereas that was not the hierarchical division of labor that was central to the western tradition and central to Neitzsche’s work.

    Realistically it is the difference between the consumer model that is good enough for everyday work, and the professional model that requires precise measurement in order to perform medical operations.

    What I dislike about the Big5 is it’s hypothesis of a perfect (Feminist) individual. MBTI doesn’t do that. It just tells you how people are, and assumes you can tell the differnece between the secure and insecure becuaes they don’t wanna tell people using a consumer product that mostly they are insecure. When actually, using something like MBTI long enough will reduce a LOT of your insecurities.

    iii) The Dichotomy Model proposed by Jung is false. We have at least five if not six or seven major axis of personality that affect our behavior – which I won’t get into right now. But what does that mean? We’ll find out in a minute…

    BUT! This simplistic error of dichotomy helps us understand why personality testing is difficult, and why the simplified version of MBTI is ‘pretty good’.

    Humans really are terrible comparing more than a two dimensional representation of anything. We evolved to compare one thing with another. But most of our intellectual advancement has been the product of learning how to compare increasingly complex things.

    So if we can graph two functions on a plane we can visualize them. If we can take slow motion video of a horse running we can analyze what it’s really doing rather than guess – something which stumped artists for all of history until the era of photography.

    Statistics is rife with aggregates that falsely inform us. Left and right are insufficient models for analysis of politics. two dimensions are insufficient to capture all but four simple axis. Three dimensions can create a better nolan chart. It takes three dimensions and some work to create a class diagram.

    For those with rudimentary understanding of economics as a study of equilibria, supply demand charts are hard enough. but what about multiple supply demand charts? We have to create models at that point using software, because we cannot visualize the results.

    For those who are involved in Austrian economics, look at the difference between Hayekian triangles: how he worked to create a model of intertemporal production cycles.

    This is the problem when we talk about five or more dimensions of personality: we cannot represent them simply.

    Each personality trait represents a spectrum – a line with different variables, at each end of which are points of failure. And modeling multiple dimensions how they appear as demonstrated behavior is pretty difficult.

    So, lets imagine a bunch of tall tubes standing on end, arranged in a circle. We fill each with liquid measuring each of the 5+ personality traits. Now, even if marginal difference in behavior between the extremes is only say on a scale of ten on each one (and I think it’s more than that), that’s a lot of combinations of personality types available to us.

    But we could however, instead of combinations state ratios (intersections), or basically a truth table (binaries). And this is what MBTI tries to do. Produce binaries where there might be many in between, just so that we get ‘close enough’ to start working with people.

    The reason to do this is because the average human mind just cannot really manage to do more than that.

    Now back to our ‘tubes’, lets take our circular stack of tubes and draw a horizontal plane through all of them in the middle. This is the way that Big5 looks at personality measurement.

    But we can draw many planes at many angles, in order to treat some properties more or less importantly than the others. This is how MBTI looks at measurements: that each plane we draw, if we draw 16 of them, will produce an ideal type that we can use to understand others.

    So in this sense, MBTI USES 16 IDEAL TYPES that you empathize with, AND BIG5 USES ONE IDEAL TYPE and a lot of properties that you have to rationalize.

    Once you see this, and grasp that they are measuring 4 of the same properties, this makes sense.

    MBTI is a mass market teaching tool. And it works.

    As a ‘professional’ I use my own categories.

    3) —“The Myers-Briggs uses false, limited binaries”—

    This is a ‘feature’ not a bug. The reason MBTI is successful is that PEOPLE CAN USE IT, and you can take it over and over again and start to understand yourself and others.

    4) —“The Myers-Briggs is largely disregarded by psychologists”—

    So is IQ. So is Nature vs Nurture. And Freudian psychology was an non-empirical pseudoscience constructed by introspection and guesswork just like Jung’s – and arguably remains so outside of experimental psychology. It is cognitive science not psychology we follow today.

    Unfortunately, I’ve used pretty much every model on the market, and while I DO use a more predictive model, which produces graphs of the four major personality traits, (blame avoidance being my favorite), MBTI fits the GOOD ENOUGH model for 90% of the world’s work force. And that’s why it’s good. ‘Cause 90% of the ordinary folk in the world can learn how to use it until something better comes along.

    5) WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE INSTEAD?

    I prefer:

    I) moral biases: feminine(left)/balanced(libertarian)/masculine(conservative),

    II) altruistic-trusting/balanced/not-trusting-selfish,

    III) extraversion/balanced/introversion,

    IV) autistic-analytic/balanced/empathic-solipsistic,

    V) rigid-organized(closing things off)/balanced/ intuitive(preserving options)-irresponsible,

    VI) endurance-patience/balanced/frustration-impulsivity,

    VII) paranoia-fearfulness/balanced/confidence-steadiness,

    VIII) verbal IQ in .5 std deviations from 100. (scale of -5 to +5 because more or less is irrelevant.)

    With those 8 measurements I am pretty sure we can lock down almost everything about a person.

    AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL PUT IN OVERSING!!!!!

    (eventually)

    Thanks

    – Curt Doolittle

    (Masculine, Altruistic, Autistic, Intuitive, Endurance, Paranoid, +5)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 04:35:00 UTC

  • Market Failure? Political Failure? No. Our Failure.

    [W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Market Failure? Political Failure? No. Our Failure.

    [W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE. We can fail to construct

    MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE.

    We can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’).

    We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction.

    We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve.

    The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons.

    The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all.

    We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes.

    We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common.

    We have failed moreso by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 06:41:00 UTC

  • Sometimes I think ideology is basically an excuse to compensate for reading disa

    Sometimes I think ideology is basically an excuse to compensate for reading disability. ‘Cause it’s not like the information isn’t out there. It is.

    Yes, I understand it’s hard to know which books, and yes, I understand that it is far better to ask other people to educate you than to read – some of us enjoy educating others.

    But that is different from needing a vent for one’s frustration at the world, and clinging onto a life raft that justifies your rebellion.

    Propertarianism doesn’t tell me I’m right or anyone else is right. It tells me that the only way we know what is right is through exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 02:59:00 UTC

  • THE SOURCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS. All animals that can move seek to

    THE SOURCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS.

    All animals that can move seek to acquire.

    What they acquire they treat as their property: they defend it.

    Cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for acquisition.

    But cooperation invites free riding, so we punish free riders (parasites) to preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation.

    This is the source of natural law.

    The desire for Liberty competes with the desire for consumption, which competes for the desire for insurance, all of which compete with the desire for dominance or cheating ( free riding/parasitism).

    Hence Liberty is a desire of a minority, security the desire of the majority; and those who desire Liberty and security conspire to control those who wish to live parasitically.

    This is the correct origin of natural law.

    Natural rights are something we often desire.

    So we advertise that we desire them.

    But to exist we must construct them. The only way to construct them is thru exchange of them as mutual guarantee and mutual insurance.

    Attempts to cast rights as existential are attempts to obtain those rights without paying the high cost of them: the reciprocal insurance of others against the abridgment of them by third parties.

    This is correct.

    Libertinism states all of this falsely as an act of fraud: escaping the western traditional contract that only those who will fight to protect property may enter into the agreement for reciprocal grant of insurance.

    That is the full answer Uncolored by the false promise of libertinism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 13:34:00 UTC

  • The Private Mind and Home vs the Sacred Commons

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.(trigger warning – some comments may be offensive) [S]ome people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom. We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason. As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom. I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts. Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust. Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies. Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism. To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so. This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons. Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons. It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple. Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter. NOTICE OUR COMMONS Notice how our commons looks in western civilization and how (shitty) it looks in the rest of the world. Notice how our commons looks in our middle and upper classes and how it looks in our lower and out-of-sight classes. Europe is a vast open air museum. Western man evolved to consider nature and the commons sacred. This is why we have commons and lesser cultures do not. A commons is created when we deny ourselves consumption in order to save. A commons may not be privatized. It was very expensive to develop commons. And commons are OUR MOST competitive advantage over other groups. Truth, Property, Property Rights, Trust are all commons just as surely as is Central Park. THEREFORE Attacks on the commons are attacks on western civilization and all that derives from it. Anarchism is an attempt to attack the commons and destroy the west’s advantage. Cosmopolitan (jewish) immoralism is an attempt to generate impulsivity from which they can profit because of non-competition from high trust (Christian) moralists. If you understand this it will change you forever. Rothbard was a jewish, cosmopolitan, immoralist, attempting to attack the commons so that his people and others could profit from the impulsive immorality of the underclass that we have worked for millennia to reduce and contain through our norms and laws. Now he would not KNOW that. He would intuit it as merely mutually beneficial. Because his intuition was intrinsically immoral. Again. Westerners solved the problem of the underclasses through hard work. And the jews do the opposite: they surrender the commons in order to profit from the underclasses at the expense of the civilization. This is what they have done to every host culture. It is their evolutionary strategy. I have no idea if it is genetic, but it appears to be likely at this point that it is a combination of genetics, religious duplicity, and sub-cultural tradition and norm.

  • The Private Mind and Home vs the Sacred Commons

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.(trigger warning – some comments may be offensive) [S]ome people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom. We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason. As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom. I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts. Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust. Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies. Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism. To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so. This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons. Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons. It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple. Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter. NOTICE OUR COMMONS Notice how our commons looks in western civilization and how (shitty) it looks in the rest of the world. Notice how our commons looks in our middle and upper classes and how it looks in our lower and out-of-sight classes. Europe is a vast open air museum. Western man evolved to consider nature and the commons sacred. This is why we have commons and lesser cultures do not. A commons is created when we deny ourselves consumption in order to save. A commons may not be privatized. It was very expensive to develop commons. And commons are OUR MOST competitive advantage over other groups. Truth, Property, Property Rights, Trust are all commons just as surely as is Central Park. THEREFORE Attacks on the commons are attacks on western civilization and all that derives from it. Anarchism is an attempt to attack the commons and destroy the west’s advantage. Cosmopolitan (jewish) immoralism is an attempt to generate impulsivity from which they can profit because of non-competition from high trust (Christian) moralists. If you understand this it will change you forever. Rothbard was a jewish, cosmopolitan, immoralist, attempting to attack the commons so that his people and others could profit from the impulsive immorality of the underclass that we have worked for millennia to reduce and contain through our norms and laws. Now he would not KNOW that. He would intuit it as merely mutually beneficial. Because his intuition was intrinsically immoral. Again. Westerners solved the problem of the underclasses through hard work. And the jews do the opposite: they surrender the commons in order to profit from the underclasses at the expense of the civilization. This is what they have done to every host culture. It is their evolutionary strategy. I have no idea if it is genetic, but it appears to be likely at this point that it is a combination of genetics, religious duplicity, and sub-cultural tradition and norm.

  • A Short Introduction to Propertarianism On The Questions of Drugs and Religion

    —“What’s your view of the contemporary drug war? How does the Propertarian framework handle the externality effects of drug use? Conservatives obviously seem to feel strongly about it that they license a monolithic state to fight it, and libertarians seem to adopt the opposite libertine position, at best hoping that it somehow reduces the negative externalities in the end (something something free association). Exposure to your framework has taught me that there may be an interesting, novel response, one that (as intended with your system) doesn’t lose information and fairly negotiates between interest groups.”— Josh [G]reat Question Josh. Alcohol, Drugs, and Religion – and, yes I’m including religion for a good reason. 0) What one does in the mind, toilet, and home, is irrelevant if it does not externalize costs into the commons, court, or sacred places and events. 1) Prosecution of drug users has nothing to do with the users, but to the externalities caused by their drug use. In other words, the that prosecution is an act of prior restraint by the insurer of last resort on behalf of the insured. 2) Contract of any kind requires sentience, and without sentience one cannot adhere to contract. 3) Restitution is not possible since not all things are open to substitution – particularly living things like people and pets, but also art, and sacred things. 4) Restitution of information is not possible and this is a serious issue for mothers who must regulate the information available to their children in order to reduce the cost of raising competitive civic offspring. 5) Moral hazard – The problem with degenerative drug use, is that if one doesn’t take care of one’s mind and body the rest of society is put in moral hazard (just as unwed mothers put society in moral and economic hazard), by forcing us to either provide (costly) care, imprison, or kill. 6) Organizations can be held accountable for the actions of their members on behalf of the organization’s and their interests. A religion can prevent knowledge, or it can distribute knowledge. It can prevent bad civic behavior, or distribute bad civic behavior. It can use numbers to create and limit normative behavior, and create and limit economic and political behavior – even military behavior. So religions can externalize objectively good or objectively bad information, and restitution (repair) is almost impossible due to the unique method of teaching used by religion – the natural ‘drug’ ( endorphins ) provided by the submission-to-the-safety-of-the-pack response caused by gatherings of groups in ceremony, listening or chanting myths (prayers). ( Note: as you suggested, the addition of informational analysis helps us better understand these problems. ) SO THE QUESTION How can one insure others against the externalities? Well, one can engage in recreational use of drugs in the home, the home of friends, or somewhere not in the commons – admitting that it’s precisely the entertainment of the commons, and relief from the pressure of normative obedience in the commons most of us seek release from. One can limit one’s use of these things to the non-detrimental. As far as I know alcohol pot and most non-opiates are safe in small numbers. But anything that alters brain chemistry is a serious problem for all of us. One can engage in ‘celebrations and rituals’ with others who provide insurance when you are not able to (‘ someone who doesn’t drink – much – for example ‘). THE REAL ISSUE As far as I know the most significant issues creating this problem are the tragic danger of automobiles, the moral hazard of universal health care, the externalization of un-civic behavior to the young and ‘impulsive’, the retaliation invoked by the desecration of the sacred – of which to westerners, the commons simply is a part. Evidence is that extremely severe prosecution of violators of the commons has greater influence than prosecution of the manufacturers and distributors. So my suggestion is that one serious strike or three minor strikes get you hung. This fear will be enough to control aberrant behavior in the commons while permitting what I see as necessary release for the ‘impulsively impaired’ in the home. Like prostitution, if manufacture and distribution are not taking place in the commons, and if use is not taking place in the commons, and if externalities are not produced in the commons, then there is no meaningful consequence. THE HIDDEN BENEFIT Pot has the amazing benefit of both pacifying the underclasses and rapidly increasing male sterility, thereby reducing the rates of reproduction. The opposite is true of alcohol. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine