Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • BEHOLD IMPULSIVE WOMAN, THE PANDORA: DESTROYER OF CIVILIZATION Men developed the

    BEHOLD IMPULSIVE WOMAN, THE PANDORA: DESTROYER OF CIVILIZATION

    Men developed the many prohibitions and regulations of male impulses, biases and intuitions for no less than ten thousand years.

    And yet we handed women equal political power without equal prohibitions and regulations on female impulses, biases, and intuitions.

    Men used civilization to prolong consumption in favor of capital accumulation. Women used the voting booth to pull forward consumption in favor of unbounded reproduction. Women undid in just over one century thousands of years of civilization.

    Unlike ‘conservatives’ I do not seek to withdraw women’s participation, but to limit the damage done by female impulses, biases and intuitions just as we limited the damage that can be done by male impulses, biases and intuitions.

    Unfortunately for the Feminist movement, it has become clear that it was the impulses of in-group women that we controlled throughout the process of civilization, and the impulses of out-group men we controlled through the process of civilization.

    So the evolution of property accomplished both the regulation of women’s impulsive reproduction at the expense of capital accumulation. Or put more simply: it was as equally important to regulate women as it was men.

    But our institutions and laws regulated men, while our norms regulated women. Given access to the ballot box, and thereby to political power, women destroyed civilization in pursuit of their impulses.

    Houses for competing group evolutionary strategies.

    Houses like the senate and jury, hear appeals.

    Contracts for commons must pass dissent by involuntary transfer, not assent.

    It is hard for us to grasp that there is not much that is a knowable good goal, only knowable good process for achieving goals. Yet that there are knowable bad goals and knowable bad processes, and knowable bad actions.

    That which is bad can be known: they are truths.

    That which is good is that which is not bad.

    That which is better is a matter of preference not truth.

    We can enfranchise anyone under the prevention of the bad.

    And we can return Pandora to the box.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 05:19:00 UTC

  • FINANCIAL PREDATION (still working on this but it’s getting there) We can stop i

    FINANCIAL PREDATION

    (still working on this but it’s getting there)

    We can stop it. The problem is, that the way we stop it is non-trivial:

    (a) require all issues released at market price with no favoritism (equal starting gate provision).

    (b) prevent insurance (hedges), require proportional holding of debt, force proportional losses (‘skin in the game’)

    (c) eliminate protection from liability for all individuals involved in any transaction, and reward (commission) for reporting offenders – (make it profitable to report your boss or peers.)

    (d) professionalize banking just like law and certified public accounting increasing the quality of people in the industry.

    (e) require total transparency of all OPM investor transactions. (what I recommend).

    (f) move all companies to block chain ledgers.

    (g) tax arbitrage and volatility entirely, while eliminating taxation on dividends, and appreciation. (eliminate trading and force investing)

    (h) Buy (federally) ‘bottom-feeder’ Mastercard, and redistribute liquidity directly to citizens rather than through the financial sector and interest rates – in exchange for elimination of sales tax and minimum wage. (what I recommend). These cards cannot be attached or indebted for any purpose whatsoever, private or public. The money is split between disposable and retirement security. The retirement funds are investable.

    (i) Stocks provide no voting or ownership provisions (positive), only legal defense(negative). One may contract for ownership provisions as condition of investment, but one cannot simply buy up control of companies without consent.

    (j) Eliminate boards of directors – I have not seen any empirical evidence that a board has any value whatsoever that could not be provided by an advisory board that assists in the development of relationships and expertise. But boards appear to have a negative influence on business. Transparency and rule of law are the only material defense. We no longer need political representatives in this age, and we no longer need the private sector equivalent. My experience is that boards that do not consist of material owners are universally damaging to a business. (The Buffett Principle: substantive owners with deep knowledge of the business, only). Both boards of directors and stock voting are hangovers from the paper and pencil era.

    (k) Elimination of all non-safety employment regulation – voluntary association, merit based. This social engineering is harmful to social cooperation, and a constant source of cost and conflict that encourages the internal equivalent of a black market in information.

    (l) Eliminate taxation on unrealized profits (this nonsense we go through for options for employees). We go through tons of falsehoods to circumvent the fact that while large transfers may occur almost no profits do. So eliminate the burden of preventing false taxation by simply requiring tax only on realized profits.

    (j) Move all accounting, banking, and credit, nationally if not world-wide to thirteen four week periods, and off the lunar cycle invented in the age of sail.

    STRENGTHEN

    1) rule of law, individual accountability, civic morality, truth content,

    2) encourage more Andresson Horowitz investment organization (innovation producing risk taking) and less Goldman Sachs (systemic parasitism).

    PRESERVE

    1) I want to preserve the lottery effect that the stock market provides to entrepreneur, business, and industry, but to limit the finance sector’s ability to disproportionately privatize issues – which is how it’s done today. With little or no value to the economy, business, and citizenry.

    ELIMINATE

    1) Eliminates the ability of the financial sector to direct the economy, only profit from funding the fulfillment consumer demand, thereby forcing the consumer and the investor to have the same interests.

    2) Eliminates financial predation on business and industry. (which if you have been involved in it – and I have – is unimaginable )

    3) Eliminates costly burdens on organizations that must preserve multiple fallacies:

    a) that tax, credit, and operational accounting differ because credit cycles demand stability that does not exist, taxes demand returns that do not exist.

    b) social engineering compliance is costly and we merely work hard to circumvent it.

    c) fallacy that the financial sector works in our interest.

    d) if we distribute liquidity directly outside of the financial system then minimum wage is unnecessary, and the incentive to limit immigration will exist.

    ( more… but I’m out of time for this today. )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 03:43:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF WESTERN EGALITARIANISM As a member of the upper classes I hold by

    THE ORIGINS OF WESTERN EGALITARIANISM

    As a member of the upper classes I hold by the principle of noblesse oblige: every position on the team, in the field, in the economy, in the army is dependent upon every other. But this not an air. It is continuation of tradition of martial rank.

    Rank is necessary for coordination and skill, so that together we may resist or defeat those with less coordination and skill – but otherwise we are all brothers in arms.

    This is the origin of western egalitarianism: voluntary organization of the militia as our means of defense. Of part time soldiers, and professional warriors. And we preserved this order in daily life. We preserved our ranks in daily life. We preserved our brotherhood in daily life. This is the meaning of ‘the west’.

    The king and pawn fulfill different needs but the pawn cannot organize without the king, and the king cannot concentrate force without the pawn.

    The martial is instinctual in many of us. It has been with us for millennia. It is in our genes. The urban is in many of them, and the steppe and desert in others. The woman carries with her impulsive pragmatism necessary of mothers, and her history as breeding herd for male bands.

    Only we built the west out of truth, testimony, rank, and merit. Only we can save the west with truth, testimony, rank and merit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 03:09:00 UTC

  • WILL YOU INSURE YOUR BROTHERS? Think of it this way. When will you insure your b

    WILL YOU INSURE YOUR BROTHERS?

    Think of it this way.

    When will you insure your brothers? Is that insurance not the origin of property rights? Is that insurance not the origin of the brotherhood of soldiers? Is not all our civilization built upon our mutual insurance of one another?

    Our men need confidence that we will insure one another. That we take the oath and will not break the oath. Then they need a few examples.

    There are enough of us to rebuild the west. But we must understand that there is no one to save us but ourselves. We either draw arms and insure one another or we die like the rest as victims of the hordes.

    It is the confidence in one another that we must build.

    Then we must make it so expensive for our oppressors both home and abroad to violate our property, that they choose some alternative venue for their mischief. We will do that by the most expensive cost we can put upon them: Loss, Suffering, Death.

    SInce we act on behalf of our kith and kin, then we will punish the kith and kin of those who violate our property. This means that if a man works against us, he risks his life, his kin, his home, and his relations.

    No mercy. We insure one another so that families restrain one another.

    Civilization has never been so frail.

    They have no choice – if we have the will.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 02:52:00 UTC

  • WOMEN UNLEASHED THE GHOULS OF SOCIETY —“Here’s the dirty secret of women worki

    WOMEN UNLEASHED THE GHOULS OF SOCIETY

    —“Here’s the dirty secret of women working — they can do what they want but here ya go — when they started entering the work force in mass, the ghouls of society took over raising the kids and installing Mental Malware into their mush brains. Stress was raised in the house, since both partners were dead ass tired at the end of the day, oh and with all that extra income, they first just spent more of it, then the government figured out they could just tax the surplus — and now we went from it being a choice for women to work to being a requirement — and collectively have the same purchasing power they did before when only the husband worked.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:01:00 UTC

  • WOMEN NEED THEIR OWN KITCHEN (SOVIETS DEMONSTRATED IT) OK. So if “In the kitchen

    WOMEN NEED THEIR OWN KITCHEN (SOVIETS DEMONSTRATED IT)

    OK. So if “In the kitchen, cooking, barefoot, and pregnant” is such a bad thing, how come whenever women are in the kitchen together, in slippers, and at least one is pregnant, they are so damned happy?

    Never listen to what people say. Watch what they do and how they behave when doing it.

    I think, most men, if they could build brick and stone buildings, and sew fields, and hunt a bit, in ‘crews’, and not do so at risk, would be much happier than they are working in isolation on abstractions without visible accomplishment.

    There must be some balance (like they have in France, eastern Europe and in Russia) between having a cottage and garden in the countryside, and an apartment and work in the city.

    What if we had 4-day work weeks and 3-day weekends, and our old folks were the responsibilities of offspring in villages, rather than old folks homes?

    I hate the industrialization of society. The socialist and communists were a human catastrophe.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 05:47:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIAN VILLAGE LIFE (village vs farm) In America when we say ‘small farms’ we

    UKRAINIAN VILLAGE LIFE

    (village vs farm)

    In America when we say ‘small farms’ we mean that a single family owns and manages it with family resources. This style farm accounts for 90% of US farms, but only 40% of output. Or conversely, 10% of US farms are commercial enterprises which produce 60% of the output. (I do not know the acreage behind each of the percentages.)

    Ukraine is a breadbasket and has some of the world’s largest farms. The Ukrainian Government owns 80% of the farm land, and generates revenue from it (much of which appears to be stolen through corruption if the news I read is correct.)

    That leaves 20% of the farm land for private use. The average small farm here in Ukraine is about 2500 acres, and they sell produce – cattle are unprofitable.

    But when they say ‘the village’ they generally refer to:

    —“Most families have a one acre plot on which they keep a cow and grow vegetables and fruit trees to feed the family, and even those that can afford to buy everything from supermarkets tend to grow their own.”—

    Today I’m standing outside 2700 square foot two story farm house built of large concrete or maybe aero-crete blocks, sheathed in dense insulation foam, covered with poly wire, and with stucco applied. It has a tile roof.

    At the other end of the lot there is a ‘summer kitchen’ (for cooking and processing produce), under construction and it’s built with aero-crete to the lintels and then bricks above – overhead are oversized wood beams.

    It looks like at most two acres at least one half or more of which is what they call a ‘garden’ but what we could nearly call a small field. The half of the property gardened has a mild incline and at the top looks like a septic mound, then next is an orchard, with new young tress, and the rest is broken into sections for different kinds of produce. I see a pile of new potatoes that looks to have been discarded or set aside for seed. Behind the summer kitchen is a long trench that looks like its used for composting.

    Now, if folks can afford to shop at the market, they still don’t. They like ‘organic’ foods here. They live off their produce and usually sell some of it (I have no idea how that occurs). And when they retire they own their homes, must pay for gas and electricity, and can largely feed themselves. And this is considered ‘a quality life’. Typically the younger generation lives in cities and goes to the ‘village’ to see relatives and celebrate holidays (which in Ukraine seem to be every three or four days.)

    Houses range from frighteningly decrepit shacks on small plots to 5K square foot homes with regal fences – although I have seen none that equal Upper Middle class American homes in the best neighborhoods. Most of these homes are paid for in cash. They spend a year or two building them. Almost every man you meet seems to know how to build a house with the same familiarity we think of changing a car’s oil.

    This part of the world can tolerate economic volatility because it is still possible for much of the population to return to the village and rely upon personal production in a pinch. The poor here may be poor but they rarely look underfed. Just the opposite: too many potatoes.

    What I notice most is that people here are not alone. Friends and family have meaning in that they materially care for one another. Because they can. Because they remain in proximity to one another. Because they are not dependent on a complex and fragile system of production for survival – only for entertainment.

    Despite my love of my family, and my respect for the absolute nuclear family, I understand that the mobile society is a bad thing.

    And worse, that economists are complicit in the destruction of western civilization.

    I didn’t think I could put morality back into the science of economics but I did. And it wasn’t very hard. What will be hard is legislating morality in economics, and prosecuting immoral economists the way we prosecute immoral scientists.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:32:00 UTC

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Lying: Methods and Techniques .. Plus A Reading List

    (important) (first draft) (this ought to make some people think) [W]hat I am struck by when researching this topic, is how primitive the research is into HOW lies are constructed. Here are the Axis I am working with: So sticking with the general rules that:

      6) One can speak to:

        5) One can convey :

          7) One can speak using: -construction-

            8) One can speak with:

              9) One can construct speech out of: -axis-

                10) One can engage in discovery by: -discovery-

                  10a) one can engage rallying by: -Rallying-

                    11) One can employ arguments using (true or false) :

                      CATEGORIES OF LIES? —“Nanavati classifies lies into the following categories:”–

                        READING LIST Dallas Denery: The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment Thomas Carson: Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice Jennifer Mather Saul: Lying, Misleading, and What is Said Clancy Martin: The Philosophy of Deception Herbert Fingarette: Self-Deception Brooke Harrington: Deception: From Ancient Empires to Internet Dating Edward Bernays: Propaganda Jason Stanley: How Propaganda Works Hardcover Jeremy Elkins: Truth and Democracy David Livingstone: Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others Daniel Nanavati: A Brief History Of Lies