Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM (I am tur

    Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM

    (I am turning out to be an enemy of the twentieth century’s advocacy of highly loaded easily understood, short sentences.)

    —“The mainstream econ definition of a common good is one which is rivalrous but non-excludable. So in this sense, I understand why one might consider law itself a common good, but court systems? Is demonstration sufficient to consider something a common good? I mean, wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    –“rivalrous but non-excludable”—

    But is that demonstrably true? Is any good non-excludable?

    Instead, humans demonstrably reciprocally insure all property against some subset of:

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    A park is an interesting example: we grant people Transitus, but deny all other rights.

    A common grazing ground is another interesting example: we grant transitus, fructus, but that is all.

    A monument (or a church, which is our most common monument), we grant only transitus.

    We prohibit people from denying Transitus where it imposes unnecessary burdens: property lines.

    Water is another interesting example, we deny pollution that externalizes costs. We have done the same recently with air. We probably need to do the same with the seas.

    But does any people tolerate abusus? (making land uninhabitable or unusable?) Only where land is not valuable.

    A commons is that which some group has expended effort (born costs) to inventory, and to prohibit one or more rights, the most common of which is Abusus, Mancipio and Constituo. (See Nobel Prize Winner Elanor Ostrom’s work)

    —“wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    It is better to see marxists as preserving discretion and accrual of debt to produce a dysgenic order, and property rights advocates as eliminating discretion and replacing it with accrual of debt, to produce a eugenic order. In other words, marxists are promoting the parasitic female strategy to reverse civilization, and propertarians are promoting the productive male strategy to continue civilization.

    (This is a profound restatement of these issues)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:46:00 UTC

  • WE CAN TEACH TESTIMONIALISM WITHOUT MILITARY SERVICE We can buy our franchise by

    WE CAN TEACH TESTIMONIALISM WITHOUT MILITARY SERVICE

    We can buy our franchise by performing care-taking and emergency services instead of military service. We just must buy our franchise with that which cannot be replaced by money: our demonstrated self-sacrifice of irreplaceable time for the commons.

    I talk about the evolution of western testimonialism, reason, science, jury and senate as the product of our familial military financing, individual tactics, and unforgiving martial contract and epistemology. I talk about buying into the franchise of property rights by sacrifice in defense of those property rights, and offensive expansion of those property rights to others.

    But we can teach testimonialism through our western myths, and through narrative, grammar (operationalism, and eprime), rhetoric, logic, and propertarian ethics.

    We can teach history not as political history, but as the history of evolution of various technologies of epistemology(knowledge), cooperation(ethics and politics and institutions), and construction(action).

    We need not continue to teach a false religion as a pseudoscience.

    We need not continue reversing 5000 years of western evolutionary development.

    We can prevent the second ‘mysticism’ of the west, this time in the form of pseudoscience

    We just cannot do so by begging, we must do so by force.

    End the century of lies.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-17 04:11:00 UTC

  • THE POLITICAL VIRTUES OF MILITARY SERVICE The military does an exceptional job o

    THE POLITICAL VIRTUES OF MILITARY SERVICE

    The military does an exceptional job of converting upper proletarian and lower middle class men who would otherwise be selfish and useless into useful cogs in an amazingly large and complex machine. It is a very organized pseudo-society, but it does form a society. I am surrounded by these guys at the moment and it’s amazing how GOOD FOR YOU that military service is in making you a less selfish and capable member of the polity. I still think public service and basic training in the militial model should be required. I would have sucked at it. It would have been very hard on me. But I would have done it. And I think I would have been the better for it. A lot of men would happily join companies that would ‘take care of them for life’ at very low disposable income, and be perfectly happy to not fend for themselves in the labor market directly. The military (service), Guild (professional union), and entrepreneurial(independent) models all work, as long as we do not try to make them universals.

    Monopoly is the enemy. Not government. Not state. But monopoly. Because we are vastly unequal.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 06:44:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING AMERICAN DIRECTNESS AND VOLUME TO FOREINGNERS —“The speaking volume

    EXPLAINING AMERICAN DIRECTNESS AND VOLUME TO FOREINGNERS

    —“The speaking volume in the United States for most conversations is very loud, which in many other countries would be considered rude. … Also, business people in the United States use very direct language and tight time management when communicating and running meetings, which people from many other countries might find off-putting.” –Raj Patel

    ON VOLUME

    It’s counter-intuitive, but our volume is an expression of high trust: that if I can be said, it can be said in public, and with confidence or it should not be said. Or conversely, quiet people who speak in whispers may have other nasty habits.

    ORIGINS

    It is beneficial to remember that Anglo and Germanic civilizations only split in 1830, and that america was founded by pre-1830 anglos, and that the majority of white americans are at least of partial german decent. America is an english speaking germanic country. That is what separates English speaking America from english speaking Britain, Canada and Australia. (This insight is rather profound and you will find that it explains many american cultural peculiarities. America is a Tudor,German, Civilization with english institutions, law and language).

    We can also recall that the world now operates Military, Aircraft, and Seas in English (germanic english) using English commands and manners, because we found out that the rest of the world operates on face (lying), hierarchical(untrue), indirect(untrue), and permissive (untrue), language suitable for village life but not for running DANGEROUS environments where truth, clarity, and directness save lives.

    But the question is, why did germanic anglos invent this kind of direct language?

    BECAUSE WESTERNERS WERE ALL MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA. German evolved as an aristocratic, martial, language. And westerners have been practicing decentralized (militia) warfare for over 5000 years – at least since they invented the Chariot.

    So even today, the first thing you are taught in basic training is to speak clearly, loudly, confidently, and TESTIMONIALLY (truthfully), regardless of the social impact of your speech – because otherwise PEOPLE DIE.

    Americans and Germans retain (Germans more so) this military culture in daily life: speak directly, clearly and truthfully. Quiet speech means you are not to be trusted, and not a fully mature adult.

    Until the last few generations, we were taught GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC (public speaking) as a requirement.

    COMPARISON FOR HINDUS

    You are correct in stating that this directness eliminates cooperative economic friction, decreases the necessity of developing trust (it’s assumed) and increases the use of litigation when it fails. That is because america does not regulate what we do, it punishes what we do if we fail. (This is profound difference between the napoleonic ‘parental and permission” model of law.

    It is not obvious but while we have very similar genetic origins, and while we both have inherited the common law, that the reason India is so pervasively corrupt, is that it is not a high trust society that has succeeded in creating a universal militia independent of class, tribe and family biases. (and the decline in truth telling in favor of political correctness and postmodern argument in all walks of life is the reason for increasing corruption in america.)

    The west has been through a 5000 year meat grinder military service and the relative success of the west in all fields – science, commerce, and law – is because we tell the testimonial truth regardless of cost to anyone. Because as a martial people, doing so is your path to status and enfranchisement. And because in a martial people, the truth means people live in battle. And martial people were led by martial aristocracy.

    It has only been since the enfranchisement of women that these requirements for disciplined truth telling have been systematically undermined. And just as martial truth-telling (testimony) is the secret of the west’s evolutionary velocity compared to older civilizations, the secret of our downfall is the decline of this tradition of martial truth telling due to the inclusion of women in the electorate. (Look at the voting data. Look at today’s voting data. American white men vote red everywhere other than main and Seattle.)

    And that’s pretty scary really.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 05:56:00 UTC

  • WHY IS GOLD VALUABLE? There are many scarce things that are not valuable, and th

    WHY IS GOLD VALUABLE?

    There are many scarce things that are not valuable, and there are many non-scarce things (diamonds) that are valuable. The plague is rare, and it is not valuable. Meteoric iron is scarce, not very pretty, and too scarce to be used as money. If scarcity were enough, then meteoric iron would be more valuable as currency than gold. But it isn’t, because not enough people want meteoric iron’s utility in tool making as want gold’s utility in signaling.

    Gold is valuable because:

    a) it is scarce enough that it takes great effort to mine and cast, and therefore hard to alter the market price by supply fluctuations, and even holds its value across centuries, but it’s not too scarce to cause frequent monetary shortages – and silver is a substitute when there are monetary shortages.

    b) It’s divisible easily in to smaller units – a necessary property of money.

    c) each of the units is small enough and valuable enough that one need not carry wagon loads for commercial purposes.

    d) It’s identifiable as what it is (unlike paper money) its very hard to counterfeit. It’s consistent in weight and heavy enough that simple tools can be used to measure it’s consistency.

    e) It is an excellent store of value because it does not tarnish or rust.

    f) It’s pretty – it can be worked and reworked, formed and reformed at low temperature, and it’s useful as a means of decoration and jewelry so it can be used to signal status, and that does not deteriorate – even across generations. It is the most malleable material and so a very small amount of it can be hammered out and used in foil to give the illusion of even greater wealth.

    g) and because it’s a status symbol as well as durable, identifiable, and optimally scarce, then EVERYONE recognizes it and everyone wants it. And that universality is what makes a good currency.

    In other words it’s identifiable, durable and desirable and transformable, as well as scarce enough to hold a stable market price, but not so scarce that it cannot be used as money.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-15 15:52:00 UTC

  • CAN I PLEASE HAVE BETTERS? I mean, I want a king whose family has been in royalt

    CAN I PLEASE HAVE BETTERS?

    I mean, I want a king whose family has been in royalty for a thousand years. I want a senate with Norman Schwartzkopf’s, a house of commerce with captains of finance and industry, a house of commons with heads of households (families) and small and medium business owners, and a house of dependents who are none of the above. Why do we vote with unaccountable numbers rather than measurable money? Why do I have to listen to professional politicians lie about a non-existent common good, instead of the point of view of each of the classes? Why do we engage in the greatest lie since monotheism: democracy, rather than discuss the expressed wants and needs of the different classes?

    I am happy to acknowledge my betters in family and business, industry and finance, trade routes and defense. Why do I not want my betters to rule? Why would any of us prefer the existing system of conflict generation and lying over truthful speech in the pursuit of creating commons between the classes?

    **I pray thee god, grant us kings, and deliver us from the people.**

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-12 07:59:00 UTC

  • THROWING CIVILIZATION DOWN DYSGNEIC STAIRCASES One of the unfortunate byproducts

    THROWING CIVILIZATION DOWN DYSGNEIC STAIRCASES

    One of the unfortunate byproducts of developing a significant knowledge of the failures of representative democracy – particularly American first-past-the-post, two-party representative democracy – is that you no longer question whether the whole process is despicable just because you disagree with it. Its just despicable period – agree with outcomes or not.

    We are throwing our civilization down the stairs of cultural Mayan pyramids in sacrifice to an even more ridiculous belief than the appeasement of the gods by human sacrifice.

    At least murdering criminals and captured enemies for entertainment purposes is doing some good in the world. But democracy is just the opposite: it’s reversing five thousand years of genetic pacification.

    The enlightenment was as devastating to politics and philosophy as it was enabling for science and technology.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 12:02:00 UTC

  • THE REASONS THERE ISN’T ANYBODY OUT THERE? 0) The universe isn’t really old enou

    THE REASONS THERE ISN’T ANYBODY OUT THERE?

    0) The universe isn’t really old enough to have confidence it’s baked more advanced civilizations. It takes a long time to bake the elements, and then longer to bake life, and longer for intelligence to evolve. On evolutionary time scales, the universe isn’t that old.

    1) Why do we think we’ve cracked the technological walnut? Why won’t it take us just as long to invent interstellar travel as it took to invent either farming, science, or the industrial revolution? Why isn’t the computational power necessary to harness the first principles of the universe a logarithmic advance over our current understanding? I mean, most of our prosperity today is the more the result of harnessing fossil fuels than of technological advancement. So why won’t it take us another half billion years to do it? (not that I think it will – but we have no way of knowing.)

    2) Out here in the spiral-suburbs its pretty peaceful despite nearly exterminating all life ever 65M years or so. But most of the universe is a very hostile place for life. Most of the starry-places are dangerous given the long period required for life-baking (evolution)

    3) Why would anyone more advanced be interested in us given the likely costs of travel? If you can travel, why go slumming? We aren’t terribly interesting.

    4) Why would anyone interested in us come here visibly and personally, instead of sending (small, fast) machines to come watch us?

    5) Its intuitively unlikely that given our rather young technology, and our inability to solve the fundamentals of the universe that advanced civilizations would communicate by the rather primitive (radiation) means that we do. I mean, smoke signals, yodels, horn blasts, and drum beats seem as silly to us as pushing radiation into the void will to others.

    6) Intelligence emerges via predators. And even though predators seek to pacify once they achieve dominance, I am having a hard time imagining a benevolent ET. I mean, if we’re less advanced, the only value one gets out of the terrible expense of interstellar travel is a planetary life system that they have to compete with us for.

    So. Shhh… Be a good child and listen.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 21:38:00 UTC

  • THE EXPLANATORY POWER OF PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Once you start looking into what

    THE EXPLANATORY POWER OF PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS

    Once you start looking into what people say as negotiating for the acquisition,

    retention and consumption of property of one kind or another, and you understand the different group evolutionary strategies as statements of property value and rights – it becomes much easier to translate the seemingly emotional, moral, and rational justifications we all speak and write as nothing more than offers of cooperation (or threats of non-cooperation) in favor of our success within our group evolutionary strategies, and our group’s success using our group evolutionary strategy.

    Under this analysis we are not embracing better angels of our nature, we have just transformed the war for evolutionary dominance from the physical to the, verbal, economic and political. We have advanced beyond religious differences as means of warfare, to a merely more humanistic argument – but for the same purpose: to conquer and expand.

    I wonder what man’s verbal negotiation would be like if we succeed in both instituting propertarian and testimonial defense of the informational commons, and

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 08:09:00 UTC

  • I AM ALL FOR PRAYER I am all for prayer. If that means talking to our gods. I do

    I AM ALL FOR PRAYER

    I am all for prayer. If that means talking to our gods. I do that all the time. I mean, who else will listen to our bitching, whining, insecurity, envy, uncertainty and indecision? lol. The great thing about an all-knowing god is that you know you can’t lie to him, and so, in your prayers it’s hard to lie. And I think a quiet time where we are unable to lie to ourselves is a particular discipline we all benefit from. I think the more “neurotic” (worrying) we are, the more important prayer is for us. Now, I have worked to where I can achieve the same discipline by writing arguments. So to some degree writing has become an equivalent discipline for testing my own thoughts. But there are things I would not write down. Even in conversation with myself. And it is those things I reserve for ‘prayer’ (talking to my god).

    (Funny: I doubt sociopaths pray, but if they do, can they lie to their gods? lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 07:51:00 UTC