Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW ( RE: ) I’ve written quite a bit a

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/THE RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW

    ( RE: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e20/what_is_moral_foundation_theory_good_for/ )

    I’ve written quite a bit about Haidt in my work on Propertarianism. Perhaps I can move the discussion out of the psychological and often pseudoscientific (preferential experience) and into the legal and often scientific (necessary cooperation)

    1) Haidt’s Moral foundations are reducible to descriptions of those instincts necessary for the preservation of the disproportionately high rewards of cooperation through the various prohibitions on ‘cheating’ which disincentives and undermines that cooperation. He describes his work by referencing evolutionary theory. He does not take cooperation further into economics (productivity). Nor does he discuss the evolution of the family structure and property rights in parallel to our evolution of production.

    2) The different weights of our biases reflect differences in reproductive strategy between the male and the female: the males operate as a collection of brothers defending a reproductive resource, and they attempt to ensure the strength of the tribe as a vehicle for their genes and are conscious of MERIT (costs/return). Females and seek to bear children at will and place the cost of their upkeep upon the tribe, and then seek to ensure the success of their offspring in competition with those of other females regardless of the child’s MERITS since her genes must persist. In large groups this difference in reproductive strategy is adopted by different classes as well as genders. (See Haidt’s Bibliography)

    3) These moral biases also express themselves as biases in perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, where progressives (feminine) favor consumption in the short term, libertarians (neutral) favor production in the medium term, and conservatives (masculine) favor accumulation of all forms of capital (especially genetic and normative) in the long term. Each of us specializes in a temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and labor: progressive short consumption regardless of merit, medium production, and long term defense. And we tend to be be morally blind to the other members of the division of perception.

    See: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/

    4) Just as prices function as an information system for the production of goods and services, voluntary cooperation functions as an information system across the reproductive division of labor. Such that cooperation between each of the specializaons provides the optimum ‘game’ outcome for all even if none is able to achieve it’s desired state of perfection. This follows monogamous reproduction which is the best for all even if not the best for some.

    5) As such, the moral foundations are reducible to **statements of property rights** necessary for the construction of a state of natural law, and provide us with the scientific (necessary and parsimonious) basis for law: the preservation of cooperation.

    SEE: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/moral-foundations-as-property-rights/

    I have become very skeptical of any ethical, moral, economic, and political philosophy that is not expressed as decidable law strictly constructed from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. Because that use of law was the anglo-law, natural-law, then jeffersonian model, and avoiding that constraint, is how the postmodernists (neo-puritans), neocons, socialists and libertines (cosmopolitan libertarians) managed to use empty verbalisms and justificationary rationalism to confuse the academic and popular discourse.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 06:33:00 UTC

  • Christian Love and Propertarianism

    [I]f you haven’t noticed, I’ve bought the love thing hook line and sinker. I tell other men I love them on a daily basis. And it’s infectious. We don’t support each other enough.

    Our culture tells us to be stalwart stoic warriors in the germanic tradition. But we no longer have normative means of obtaining positive reinforcement for our actions – thanks largely to feminists. So we have to take matters into our own hands. The red pill means not just that we love ourselves, but that we love other men. And tell them so, when they do works in our interest. Technically, Propertarianism tells us only to suppress parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). But Aristocratic Egalitarianism tells us to treat with brotherly love, all who engage in abstinence of parasitism, act as sheriff to police it, militia to defend it, and warrior to demand it. There is precious little in Propertarianism that was not in Aristocratic Christianity, Mithraism, and the initiatic brotherhood of indo European warriors that led to the construction of the Vedas. We are man’s aristocracy. Shall we abandon man to immorality? Or shall we lead him to universal love and abstinence from parasitism? Lets lead. They failed. We must take back rule. Leave them government, but take back rule. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy

  • Christian Love and Propertarianism

    [I]f you haven’t noticed, I’ve bought the love thing hook line and sinker. I tell other men I love them on a daily basis. And it’s infectious. We don’t support each other enough.

    Our culture tells us to be stalwart stoic warriors in the germanic tradition. But we no longer have normative means of obtaining positive reinforcement for our actions – thanks largely to feminists. So we have to take matters into our own hands. The red pill means not just that we love ourselves, but that we love other men. And tell them so, when they do works in our interest. Technically, Propertarianism tells us only to suppress parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). But Aristocratic Egalitarianism tells us to treat with brotherly love, all who engage in abstinence of parasitism, act as sheriff to police it, militia to defend it, and warrior to demand it. There is precious little in Propertarianism that was not in Aristocratic Christianity, Mithraism, and the initiatic brotherhood of indo European warriors that led to the construction of the Vedas. We are man’s aristocracy. Shall we abandon man to immorality? Or shall we lead him to universal love and abstinence from parasitism? Lets lead. They failed. We must take back rule. Leave them government, but take back rule. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy

  • The Cost of Teaching Truth

    [T]HE OBVERSE The day before yesterday, I met a very interesting fellow, who though a decade older, and part of the 60/70s generation (Hippies) instead of the 70’s/80’s generation (Yuppies); also of English extraction (of the taller kind), obviously someone in the same iq range; he, like many musicians was a bohemian, author of some successful pop songs (many years ago) and who (uncomfortably for me) was happy switching between lyrics, music and language as means of communication. We spoke for hours. We are different but still kin. Same genes, different gene expression. I had to couch no idea, fear no rejection of it. Weigh no words. I felt safe, understood. I could chain together a long sequence of reasoning and he could effortlessly see the pattern, and pose questions. But unlike my operationalism he, better than any woman I have met, could read people, sense them, intuit them on a scale that I feel for what we call ‘the economy’ or ‘pure abstractions’. I was envious – jealous – that like two beings we were divided: specialists in the conceptual division of knowledge and labor. That is what the future of many looks like if we do not once again descend into dysgenia. He, and me, in one, without defect, as the population in a mean. What could we achieve with just 10,000 of us? There are too few of us. We are spread out. But our utility to one another, and the relief we feel from the ease of one another’s company is what normal people experience every day – and we rarely do. It is not true that genius competes. We love one another. Models of analogy that we construct differ within the same field can come into conflict. My work creates a universal language that renders models commensurable and without dependence upon analogy. And a universal language elminates competiion on frames of analogies, such that we compete on explanatory power and parsimony. THE REVERSE But what if artist’s laments are lies, rather than truths? Thefts rather than creations? If we deprive the religious of the illusion of the deity and mystery, can we also deprive the communist, the feminist, the postmodernist, the propagandist, the snake oil salesman, and the wishful thinkers of the release and relief that their fantasies provide? Do we personalize fantasies the way we have personalized religion – eradicating both from the public commons? I can find no reason not to. I see no reason why we should or even can, limit private mysticism, self deception, obscurantism, and fantasy, while I see every reason to prohibit mysticism, obscurantism, deception and fantasy from the public forum. We prohibit discourse on many topics which are taboo and justifiably so (child pornography). We have all but prohibited religion (christianity) from the public form (because it competes with the religion-of-state). It is one thing to enforce for conformity (a positive constraint) and another to enforce the prohibition on error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from the informational commons. Although it is somewhat unfortunate that we must teach everyone the logic of truth telling the same that we teach them reading, writing, mathematics, and the scientific method. But just as the cost of teaching people the Three-R’s was expensive, the fruits were phenomenally beneficial for all. And teaching people the reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, rhetoric (truthful speech), and history as the evolution of cooperation and production, is an additional expense. But like reading, speaking truth will have similar beneficial consequences. (And it will destroy the lies, pseudosciences, and false religions forever.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv, Ukraine)

  • The Cost of Teaching Truth

    [T]HE OBVERSE The day before yesterday, I met a very interesting fellow, who though a decade older, and part of the 60/70s generation (Hippies) instead of the 70’s/80’s generation (Yuppies); also of English extraction (of the taller kind), obviously someone in the same iq range; he, like many musicians was a bohemian, author of some successful pop songs (many years ago) and who (uncomfortably for me) was happy switching between lyrics, music and language as means of communication. We spoke for hours. We are different but still kin. Same genes, different gene expression. I had to couch no idea, fear no rejection of it. Weigh no words. I felt safe, understood. I could chain together a long sequence of reasoning and he could effortlessly see the pattern, and pose questions. But unlike my operationalism he, better than any woman I have met, could read people, sense them, intuit them on a scale that I feel for what we call ‘the economy’ or ‘pure abstractions’. I was envious – jealous – that like two beings we were divided: specialists in the conceptual division of knowledge and labor. That is what the future of many looks like if we do not once again descend into dysgenia. He, and me, in one, without defect, as the population in a mean. What could we achieve with just 10,000 of us? There are too few of us. We are spread out. But our utility to one another, and the relief we feel from the ease of one another’s company is what normal people experience every day – and we rarely do. It is not true that genius competes. We love one another. Models of analogy that we construct differ within the same field can come into conflict. My work creates a universal language that renders models commensurable and without dependence upon analogy. And a universal language elminates competiion on frames of analogies, such that we compete on explanatory power and parsimony. THE REVERSE But what if artist’s laments are lies, rather than truths? Thefts rather than creations? If we deprive the religious of the illusion of the deity and mystery, can we also deprive the communist, the feminist, the postmodernist, the propagandist, the snake oil salesman, and the wishful thinkers of the release and relief that their fantasies provide? Do we personalize fantasies the way we have personalized religion – eradicating both from the public commons? I can find no reason not to. I see no reason why we should or even can, limit private mysticism, self deception, obscurantism, and fantasy, while I see every reason to prohibit mysticism, obscurantism, deception and fantasy from the public forum. We prohibit discourse on many topics which are taboo and justifiably so (child pornography). We have all but prohibited religion (christianity) from the public form (because it competes with the religion-of-state). It is one thing to enforce for conformity (a positive constraint) and another to enforce the prohibition on error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from the informational commons. Although it is somewhat unfortunate that we must teach everyone the logic of truth telling the same that we teach them reading, writing, mathematics, and the scientific method. But just as the cost of teaching people the Three-R’s was expensive, the fruits were phenomenally beneficial for all. And teaching people the reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, rhetoric (truthful speech), and history as the evolution of cooperation and production, is an additional expense. But like reading, speaking truth will have similar beneficial consequences. (And it will destroy the lies, pseudosciences, and false religions forever.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv, Ukraine)

  • Not So Fast. They Buy Our Stuff,  But Remain Unpacified.

    [U]nfortunately, no other culture, even the catholic states, approaches protestant high trust (and therefore economic velocity). We have genetically pacified northern Europe aggressively for a millennium, practiced delayed reproduction an eugenic mating for just as long, and pacified through eugenic manorialism less so for millennia before that. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/08/america_takes_o.html Cultures can adopt technology, but it has yet to be seen if anyone can adopt high trust. Truth telling, and even the very concept of it, much less contractual adherence, diminish very, very rapidly, and corruption increases very rapidly outside of the Hanjal line. I don’t see much reason for optimism. We have a very poor record of spreading truth telling and trust, even if we have a great record of spreading money, accounting, banking, interest, and consumer capitalism. Other cultures wear our clothes, eat our food, listen to our music, watch their movies, and employ our technology. But they remain familial, inbred, tribal, corrupt, and unpacified. The western miracle was caused by our accidental discovery of truth. From that discovery all of consequence was derived. Without that, little of consequence will be constructed. Our frequent self congratulation is merely signaling and hubris. We should leave the brits to specialize in it. They’re better at it. wink emoticon

  • Not So Fast. They Buy Our Stuff,  But Remain Unpacified.

    [U]nfortunately, no other culture, even the catholic states, approaches protestant high trust (and therefore economic velocity). We have genetically pacified northern Europe aggressively for a millennium, practiced delayed reproduction an eugenic mating for just as long, and pacified through eugenic manorialism less so for millennia before that. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/08/america_takes_o.html Cultures can adopt technology, but it has yet to be seen if anyone can adopt high trust. Truth telling, and even the very concept of it, much less contractual adherence, diminish very, very rapidly, and corruption increases very rapidly outside of the Hanjal line. I don’t see much reason for optimism. We have a very poor record of spreading truth telling and trust, even if we have a great record of spreading money, accounting, banking, interest, and consumer capitalism. Other cultures wear our clothes, eat our food, listen to our music, watch their movies, and employ our technology. But they remain familial, inbred, tribal, corrupt, and unpacified. The western miracle was caused by our accidental discovery of truth. From that discovery all of consequence was derived. Without that, little of consequence will be constructed. Our frequent self congratulation is merely signaling and hubris. We should leave the brits to specialize in it. They’re better at it. wink emoticon

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders

    —“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders. If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.

    Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper. Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-