Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PROOFS AND TRUTHS (important summary) When we write a proof, we demonstrate that

    PROOFS AND TRUTHS

    (important summary)

    When we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:23:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM

    MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    OMG you made me ‘get it’. Thank you. Awesome.

    I see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion:

    1) Violence(male conservative)/Law,

    2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech

    3) Remuneration (male)/Trade,

    4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship.

    With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy.

    1) Female consumption, short term (progressive)

    2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian)

    3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative)

    And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement.

    I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development:

    Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution

    0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling)

    1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea)

    2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error)

    3) Law | (production) | (habit)

    4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm)

    So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency.

    So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it.

    In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so.

    There is no recipe for free association (creativity).

    There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:22:00 UTC

  • PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING It is parasitic (immoral)

    PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING

    It is parasitic (immoral) to control the lower classes with lies. If we wish them to limit their reproduction, and cease their parasitism upon us, and restore the commons, and restore the civic society, then the HONEST and TRUE and MORAL thing to do, is to pay them for doing so.

    Violence, and Gossip (argument) are just means of lying in order to obtain a discount. In a world where men live in subsistence farming, entry into the market requires we pay the price of forgoing parasitism.

    In a world where they cannot enter the labor market, nor can return to subsistence farming, they possess no incentive other than parasitism upon us via creating demand for a predatory state.

    So we must provide alternative incentive for those people who are materially unproductive (especially given that it is very likely that the condition will worsen and spread.)

    The only people I want to hang are in the State, Academy, Media complex – the Cathedral. the rest I want only to pay to not reproduce. Which I consider far better than our previous technologies of starvation and hanging.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 07:08:00 UTC

  • THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY What if neither stat

    THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY

    What if neither state, academy, religion or media could speak falsehoods into the commons (audience) without fear of legal retaliation and necessity of restitution? What if state, academy, religion and media had to warrant their product as all other products are warranted?

    What if religious could state what prophets believed, but could not claim it was true, only myth, parable, and metaphor? What if professors could not teach falsehoods and had to warrant as such? What if philosophers could not rely upon conflation, loading, framing and overloading?

    What if we taught truth-telling, history, and literature again as well as science and mathematics? Meaning grammar, rhetoric, observation, and testimony?

    Given that the Flynn effect appears to be caused by the spread of scientific methods of thought – general rules rather than individual uses – why wouldn’t we experience the same expansion of human capability by the institution of truth telling that we have experienced with literacy, general education, and science?

    Wouldn’t truth telling be the next obvious stage in pacification, continuing humanity’s long history of incrementally suppressing parasitism and forcing people into productive rather than parasitic behaviors in order to survive?

    What is the price you would be willing to pay to remove lies from public discourse as we have largely eliminated deception from contract, and fraud from products and services? Why should we not cleanse the commons the same as we have cleansed the private sector.

    Why not end the marxist, socialist, and postmodern era’s profligate deception as a means of uniting academy and state at the expense of civic society and church? Is telling the truth so high a cost that you would preserve the various means of deception that seek to restore the authoritarianism of the church?

    Truth is enough. But liars love their lies, and the utility of their lying. They argue that a beneficial lie is better than a difficult truth. But when in history has an increased tax – a cost we must pay to produce a commons – not a burden for us?

    Truth is a high tax to pay.

    But with that tax we create liberty, prosperity, and a better mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • REFORMATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM The solution I usually advocate, given wh

    REFORMATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM

    The solution I usually advocate, given what I have learned both from Sowell’s work and the evidence coming in over the past decade, is first, that we should force universities to obtain payment as a deduction from payroll over some number of years, at a maximum of ten percent – with the treasury providing the loans. And in doing so require that administration costs are under twenty percent, and that all increases in their endowments come from contributions.

    Secondly we must separate graduate school research faculty from undergraduate teaching faculty. Without this structure the perverse incentives of the Academy/State/Media complex will persist in privatizing vast amounts of social wealth without warranty of future value.

    The Academy is the largest industry not required to provide warranty on basic goods and services. And like any business that can circumvent warranty, it does so profligately.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/10/free-college-tuition-for-everyone.html

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-23 06:54:00 UTC

  • THE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF A PEOPLE The purpose of life is not cooperation but

    THE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF A PEOPLE

    The purpose of life is not cooperation but persistence. Cooperation that is beneficial is rational. Cooperation that empowers enemies is not beneficial. There is no morality between enemies. It exists only between third parties who must decide to insure either party in conflict. And third parties can only determine morality, not by possession, but by which group produces higher trust, superior man.

    It is very hard to argue that the world is better with any of the Arab states vs the Israeli. Otherwise one is forced into the logical argument that all people in all cultures, and all cultures in all nations, are equal, or of equal merit.

    This is not the case. Morality exists between peers. Everything else requires merely objective analysis of the merits of the peoples. This conflicts with the ambitions of inferior peoples. The mongols did no good with their conquests – only evil. The russians only evil. The Chinese largely good.

    So I do not support the postwar consensus any longer. It is a failed theory. The end is that if a people are a problem then they must be ruled by superiors who are not a problem, with the ambition of correcting them such that they develop into a productive people.

    We are not equal. Some people, groups, tribes, nations are devolutionary and harmful. Of the modernizers I tend to see the church as the most benevolent, and the dutch and anglos next, and everyone else fairly distant third. This is probably unpleasant, but as far as I know it is hard to defeat.

    Suppression of Parasitism is Pacification: Make the Universe a Garden For the God, Man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-23 04:20:00 UTC

  • THE LIMIT OF GOODNESS IN FREE TRADE. The question is rarely free trade but the l

    THE LIMIT OF GOODNESS IN FREE TRADE.

    The question is rarely free trade but the long term strategic and short term civic impact of loss of human capital.

    And trade regulation is like violence and can be put to good or ill.

    Bargaining with it is different from giving away rents. Making use of comparative advantage is different from losing strategic knowledge and capacity.

    Weaponising comparative advantage in labor costs, credit, or technology is fairly easy and a common occurrence.

    The most common example is selling mosquito nets in Africa and driving the local business out, then deciding it isn’t profitable enough of a market. The same is true for driving customer service and choice and quality from a market. Artificially constrained scarcity is frequently used to subsidise excellence in what would otherwise be a lowest common denominator market.

    Shopping malls, tourist areas, City Centers, neighbourhood housing designs, regional building codes, inventory catalog assortments, national product distributions, advanced research and development industries and even elite universities and large industrial employers all practice the desire to maintain the quality and variety or consistency of their offerings. And it is precisely this technique which generates comparative advantage.

    There are no limitless general rules in economics. The limit of the good of free trade is rent seeking but not does not include capital accumulation.

    Lower short term prices at the expense of long term capital is one of the worst possible false efficiencies because it is not in fact productive.

    Just as protection used to fund privatisation and political influence is one of the worst inefficiencies because it is neither productive nor increases capital nor produces discounts for consumers.

    I distrust most current libertarian arguments because they all rely on limitless general rules which cannot exist in economics – a body of thought which describes equilibrial not linear processes.

    So you should mistrust then just as much as any Keynesian restatement of Marxism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-20 12:24:00 UTC

  • THE WALL OF MEN IS THE ONLY WALL THAT STANDS —“Impulsive men cannot be counted

    THE WALL OF MEN IS THE ONLY WALL THAT STANDS

    —“Impulsive men cannot be counted upon to hold formation; and it is our fitness, discipline, will, and reason, that compensate for our smaller numbers. It is insufficient to ignore them. So either silence them or end them.”—

    —“Our ancestors were successful in the extirpation of hatred from the european heart. But this is only an extension of our ancient tradition of the subjugation of impulse. Passion, fear, anger and hatred do not make you strong, they make you impulsive, and the impulsive do not reason, and those who do not reason are weak in practice. If one requires courage it is obtained through fitness, discipline, will, reason, planning and training. In the fog of war, or the chaos of the unknown, one’s excitement withers under the grinding of reality. So love your body, your craft of violence, your fellows and your plan, and execute it with discipline, passion and joy.”—

    —“Majority is a weakness. We built Europa first and did so twice, and dragged the world kicking and screaming out of subsistence agrarianism, mysticism, ignorance, disease, and poverty, with small numbers, and limited wealth, with a small alliance of professional warriors, whose honor was proved by constant test of it. As a minority we demonstrate our virtues, and as a majority the cowardly merely pretend to them. The man of pretense is a free rider, and can, should, and must be beaten for his theft. Those few of us who remain transcend our people once again, and yet again drag humanity kicking and screaming into godhood.”—

    —“No wall can defeat insurrection, displacement of a population, conversion by religion, or industrialized weapons. The only wall that stands against insurrection, invasion, conversion, and war, is made of men, with a greater willingness to die to defend their kin, than those who desire to control, displace, convert, or kill them.”—

    —“A warrior is an athlete first, a craftsmen of violence second, a captain of men third, a judge fifth, a strategist fourth, and a philosopher sixth. If you cannot fight, whether you know what to fight for and against has little meaning.”—

    —“Instilling fear in the enemy is an attempt to obtain their compliance at a discount. One can learn not to fear, and one can accumulate courage. So punish your pragmatic men. And defeat your enemy completely. The dead have no will to fight, and no descendants to revenge them.”—

    —“Conquest and rule of inferior external peoples who demonstrate greater parasitism, or inferior internal peoples who demonstrate diminution of your kin is always moral and warranted, and the question is only whether it is affordable and profitable. Conversely, if you demonstrate inferiority by greater parasitism or diminution of your kin, then your conquest, defeat and murder are always moral and warranted. Morality is the measure of rule. Immorality is a license to conquer and rule morally, but not conquer and prey immorally.”—

    —“Cooperation is only virtuous if it advances your kin relative to the kin of others. Otherwise it is an act of bribery on some other’s part, to end you, your kin, and their lineage by ‘boiling the frog’: death by imperceptible increments. It’s genocide by slower means, but it’s genocide none the less. Whether one is a mere frog or imbecile, ignorant man, or selfish man, or hate-filled man, one’s perception of the pace of change of in state of one’s kin is not a fact or of whether or not in fact, a state of change in one’s kin and lineage occurs. “—

    —“The only form of tolerance is the cost of education of those with less knowledge, productivity, and moral virtue, into those who have greater knowledge, productivity, and moral virtue. All other claimed tolerance is merely an attempt to avoid the cost of educating others to possess greater knowledge, productivity, and moral virtue. If you will not pay for the commons which sustains you by policing it, then you can exit it voluntarily, be punished until you exit it or change, or be put to death so you can no longer parasitically prey upon the commons produced by others.”—

    —“Virtues lead to beneficial ends. If they lead to non-beneficial ends, whether now or in the distant future, they are still non-beneficial ends. Consumerism, consumptionism, equalitarianism, open borders, religious pluralism, and democracy are means of conducting a war against a population just as certainly as bombs, guns, swords, arrows, spears, and rocks. If you care not for you kin then you need not worry for you will have none. It is up to those of us who care for our kin to persist, and you who do not, to vanish from the history written in our genes, our technologies, our arts, our myths, and our monuments,”—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-19 05:57:00 UTC

  • THE USE OF SUGGESTION TO HACK OUR REASON AND EXPERIENCE – EVEN OUR SELF PRESERVA

    THE USE OF SUGGESTION TO HACK OUR REASON AND EXPERIENCE – EVEN OUR SELF PRESERVATION.

    While I have trouble with subtle emotions – particularly confusion and fear – which I don’t really feel in combination – I have a very good logic and lie detector. Which is why continental language bothers me so much. It’s like a dysfunctional alcoholic is trying to rope me into some bullshit story in order to sell me shit I don’t want at a discount just for the sake of not offending him. It takes advantage of the suspension of disbelief to use suggestion by bypassing our experience, reason, criticism and judgement, and abusing our western familial altruistic trust response.

    So I basically can’t understand anything because I never suspend my disbelief, abandon experience, reason, or judgement, and as such cannot experience the suggestion.

    Originally, some people may recall, I wasn’t sure I needed to solve the problem of Truth, but it turned out to be the most important problem I did solve, and helped me restate my concept of ‘calculation’ as ‘operationalism.

    Over the past two years I’ve been thinking about the means of our deception – do I need to solve it and do I want to solve it? Why does loading, framing, overloading and suggestion work so well when we are in an audience whether in church, in school, sitting round the campfire, being spoken to directly by someone in authority or whom you respect or whom you love, listening on the radio, watching in a play or movie in the theatre, or cruising the internet? Why are we suggestible (trust) and why are we not suggestible (untrust)?

    I recognized early that overloading caused us to resort to intuition, and that once engaging intuition we had surrendered reason. But I did not understand the trust response, nor the suspension of disbelief response, nor the effect of combining the trust response, suspension of belief response, combined with loading, framing, overloading – and the most important of all: the submission to the pack response when we are members of an audience.

    Basically if you can find a way to directly appeal to our moral cognitive biases you can hack our altruism, reason, experience, and even sense of preservation.

    We are terribly suggestible creatures.

    Hence the value of truth – raising the cost of untruth such that only truth remains. Just as we raised the cost of violence, theft, fraud, and in many cases, free riding, such that only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of externality remains.

    We created the market in steps. First violence. Then Theft. Then fraud. Then free riding.

    It’s time to improve the market again by prohibiting suggestion by requiring truth in all matters of the commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 06:24:00 UTC

  • One of the most severe problems young men face is the limited number of sources

    One of the most severe problems young men face is the limited number of sources of status signaling available to them that also encourages them to develop wealth, independence, and ultimate liberty from which aristocratic confidence springs.

    I have always enjoyed the company of artists, writers, and nerds, but I always do business with more serious folk – partly because it is my family tradition back to at least the fourteenth century to engage in business, government and military affairs.

    The current era allows us to digitally associate with groups who we might not have personal access to in normal time and space. So I would recommend looking for opportunity locally, friends locally, and signals online where it is information rather than social status, physical features, language, and fashion that we share.

    Most men who are successful want to ‘give back’ to society in some way or another. I want to give back to the people who, like me, had little help on their journey – as a catharsis by which I exorcize past frustrations.

    This is why I love my fellows so much, and encourage them so much, and put in so much of my time and effort – its actually selfish. With each act I compensate for each prior frustration.

    Men need love each other, and strengthen each other, for the women only pretend to, and the government they have elected, tries to destroy us.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 04:33:00 UTC