Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Human History as Tribes not Governments

    [S] tatists and Priests love to teach the history of governments to give them legitimacy. But just as mathematics ought to be taught as a sequence of historical problems humans had to overcome, and we would understand it very easily, if we taught human history as the evolution of how our tribes evolved and expanded (now that we can teach it) we would find a very different world that was much easier to understand. And we would be a lot more concerned with peoples than corporate governments.

    Human history is not a very long period to cover. It’s a few thousand years. if you study land masses at geologic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study the solar system at galactic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study man at tribal time, it’s easy to understand. If you study technologies at technological time, it’s easy to understand. But if you teach these things all as a cacophony of unrelated events without a surrounding narrative it’s confusing as hell. Our myths make history seem long, mystical and confusing. But history of man’s evolution once we develop domestication is pretty simple. Before that it’s actually trivial, because it’s such a slow process. What humanists won’t like is that each wave of increasingly aggressive human wiped out the previous wave of less aggressive people.

  • Human History as Tribes not Governments

    [S] tatists and Priests love to teach the history of governments to give them legitimacy. But just as mathematics ought to be taught as a sequence of historical problems humans had to overcome, and we would understand it very easily, if we taught human history as the evolution of how our tribes evolved and expanded (now that we can teach it) we would find a very different world that was much easier to understand. And we would be a lot more concerned with peoples than corporate governments.

    Human history is not a very long period to cover. It’s a few thousand years. if you study land masses at geologic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study the solar system at galactic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study man at tribal time, it’s easy to understand. If you study technologies at technological time, it’s easy to understand. But if you teach these things all as a cacophony of unrelated events without a surrounding narrative it’s confusing as hell. Our myths make history seem long, mystical and confusing. But history of man’s evolution once we develop domestication is pretty simple. Before that it’s actually trivial, because it’s such a slow process. What humanists won’t like is that each wave of increasingly aggressive human wiped out the previous wave of less aggressive people.

  • ECONOMIC HISTORY? NO: ECONOMIC LAWS Wmmbb (All), I’m a little concerned that eco

    ECONOMIC HISTORY? NO: ECONOMIC LAWS

    Wmmbb (All),

    I’m a little concerned that economic history is a vehicle for justification one way or the other. The central argument in economics is unsettled: what is the purpose of economics?

    1) A social science (political economy) that describes human behavior in a monetary economy, regardless of policy wants or demands, so that we construct institutions that provide the least resistance to cooperation. (The german Austrian school)

    2) A means of extending the rule of law (moral cooperation) to economics (production distribution and trade): the discovery of rules which determine policy actions. (Chicago and the freshwater school)

    3) A means of justifying discretionary action independent of rules. (Krugman and the Saltwater school) I include our host John Quiggin in this group.

    The first is the least hubristic, the second more so, but allows planning, the third most hubristic, least moral, and least trustworthy.

    Discretion is for choosing flavors of ice cream. There is no room for discretion in law or economics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 06:47:00 UTC

  • THE BATTLE WE FACE TODAY: (important piece) I know I’m not the first person to s

    THE BATTLE WE FACE TODAY:

    (important piece)

    I know I’m not the first person to say this, but it’s pretty clear that Russia is not only the ultimate expression of postmodernism (lying), but that it evolved to this state by reforming jewish strategy, philosophy, and law: destroy the trust of the outsiders in order to create demand for authority and group cohesion, thereby creating opportunity for predation.

    While the founders of Russia were disproportionately jewish, and while their secret service was disproportionately jewish, what is more important is that the jewish strategy was useful for the Mongolian/Tatar/Islamic authoritarianism that is the source of Russian political culture. Russia combines ‘white’ people, Steppe totalitarianism, and jewish deceit (propaganda) as the complete economic, social, political and martial expression of the jewish strategy: destroy the higher trust societies and create demand for authority, and create opportunity for predation.

    If we go back through history and see the success of lying created through zoroastrian monotheism: jewish, it’s revolutionary reformation: christianity, and it’s counter-revolutionary authoritarianism: Islamism, then it’s modern branches in Marxism, Western Postmodernism, Russian secular judaism, and anglo progressive pseudoscience and outright lying, then

    We can not only cure ourselves, but we can disarm the world: TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

    The Truthful and Trusting society may not be the end of history, but social democracy is certainly not.

    There are three means of production of commons:

    – Truthful and Trustful (libertarian: rule of law, civic society)

    – Pragmatic and Utilitarian (social democracy)

    – Deceitful and Parasitic (authoritarianism)

    We have focused our efforts too long on the economy. Consumer capitalism has won the battle for the production of goods and services. We no longer fight that battle. And focusing our efforts on it is a waste of energy. We won not by arguments but by resisting the state long enough so that the logically obvious could result in the empirically demonstrable: the voluntary organization of production is the only successful technology for the production of consumer goods and services.

    Instead of the battle for a voluntary economy, the battle we face today is the suppression of parasitism in central bureaucracy and the expansion of trust and thereby increase of economic velocity.

    We must create a non-parasitic voluntary production of commons just as we created a non-parasitic voluntary production of goods and services.

    At present there is only one way we know of by which to destroy all parasitism, increase trust, increase economic velocity, increase prosperity, ad therefore increase choices. That is universal standing under the common law, the legal prohibition of parasitism, by mutual insurance: the exchange of guarantee of defense and restitution of property-en-toto.

    But we must also provide for the construction of commons by voluntary means, by changing what is currently a monopoly constructed by majority ascent into a market wherein any non-parasitic exchange between the classes, or objective of the classes can be constructed.

    We succeeded in transforming humanity into the voluntary organization of production of goods and services we call consumer capitalism.

    Our next mission – purely out of self defense – is to transform our government into a voluntary organization of commons.

    This project is eminently possible. It will forever render the corporeal state to the dustbin of antiquity, categorically relegated to another attempt at pseudoscience for the purpose of pure power accumulation and nothing more.

    We have a very simple mission then. To reform every possible constitution such that the judiciary shall prohibit all parasitism without exception. And that the provision of commons be one of adjudication of differences, not of ascent. And that the defense of the realm be the province of every man, under universal standing under the common law.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-25 11:13:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T EN

    ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY. WE PRODUCE THE FIRST COMMONS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION.

    Our function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.

    There is a great difference between RULE (conflict resolution) and GOVERNANCE (production of commons). Our function is to RULE (judiciary, rule of law, property rights, property en-toto.) The entrepreneurial aristocracy’s function is to organize PRODUCTION using the voluntary organization of production. Our gossip class’s function is to ADVOCATE for the allocation of resources to particular ends. But in all cases we must prevent parasitism.

    It is epistemologically impossible for an aristocratic minority to police all of these functions for parasitism without tyranny. It is on the other hand, trivially easy for individuals to police these functions for parasitism without tyranny. The means by which we engage individuals in the process of policing is to grant them universal standing in the prosecution of parasitism, expressed as the right to property-en-toto, and to include them in the restitution under conspiracy if they fail to prosecute parasitism.

    Our function is to create order by prohibiting parasitism- to create the first commons: cooperation (property-en-toto). Not to advocate. Others’ functions are to produce goods and services for the commons, and advocate for and produce commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 08:53:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE (useful) (learning propertarianism) The next ten

    HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

    (useful) (learning propertarianism)

    The next ten arguments you make, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

    4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

    5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

    9) TRUTHFUL: categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

    10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

    Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[capitalismv3.com 2011]

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:32:00 UTC

  • A HIERARCHY of ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH: (very useful) (learning propertarianism) So,

    A HIERARCHY of ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH:

    (very useful) (learning propertarianism)

    So, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

    1) MEANING (Awareness)

    ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) PREFERENCE

    ….True enough for me to feel good about.

    3) ACTIONABILITY

    ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) MORALITY

    ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) RATIONALITY

    ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) DECIDEABILITY

    ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) TRUTH

    ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) TAUTOLOGY

    ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:25:00 UTC

  • THE MEDIA AS DRUG DEALER It doesn’t make financial sense to operate a newspaper.

    THE MEDIA AS DRUG DEALER

    It doesn’t make financial sense to operate a newspaper. The FT generates 35M of profit per year on over 500M in revenues. That’s what, 7%? The reason to own a newspaper is influence: gossip.

    Now the financial times is, like the Journal, a financial rather than political newspaper. So by definition it’s an empirical and heroic medium rather than one of complaining, for the purpose of rallying shaming, and power accumulation.

    I went through five daily issues of Canada’s main newspaper a few years ago, circling correspondent articles (what I consider truthful) and you could find about three small articles a day. The rest were entertainment, created by appealing to the anglosphere’s erroneous sense of moral superiority.

    In other words, the newspaper business sells advertising to marketers, and then consumers buy signaling: a form of conspicuous consumption, that carries signals.

    And quite the opposite of what we expected: people are not able to insulate themselves from the most influential drug after sex: signals of moral fitness.

    If we look at the evolutionary reasons why this all works, it’s obvious: moral fitness makes us generous, and moral violation makes us punish.

    But we should look at the non-financial media as what they are: drug dealers.

    They’re causing suicide through addiction.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:07:00 UTC

  • Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

    [W]e can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
    1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequence, eliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

    3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.

    4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability.

    6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.


      The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.


      The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.


      But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

      Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

      Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.


      The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

      Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.


  • Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

    [W]e can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
    1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequence, eliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

    3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.

    4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability.

    6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.


      The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.


      The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.


      But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

      Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

      Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.


      The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

      Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.