Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Public Economics of Marriage

    [M]arriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property. From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:

    1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
    2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
    3. A family can engage in (re)production.
    4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
    5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
    6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
    7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
    8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
    9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
    10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
    11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
    12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
    13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
    14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
    15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
    16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
    17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
    18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).

    Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off. QED.

  • Public Economics of Marriage

    [M]arriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property. From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:

    1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
    2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
    3. A family can engage in (re)production.
    4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
    5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
    6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
    7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
    8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
    9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
    10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
    11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
    12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
    13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
    14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
    15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
    16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
    17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
    18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).

    Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off. QED.

  • TEACHING HUMAN HISTORY IS EASY IF… Statists and Priests love to teach the hist

    TEACHING HUMAN HISTORY IS EASY IF…

    Statists 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 08:22:00 UTC

  • On Gays, Gay Marriage, and the Consequence of Breaking the Limits of Tolerance

    (interesting) (some novel ideas) [T]wo over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travelers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.) I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilization. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really. But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives. But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism. And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant. I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratic-ally regulate reproduction through property rights. Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either. The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment. I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange. Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject. So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now. If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law. And that’s my plan. And it’s working.

  • On Gays, Gay Marriage, and the Consequence of Breaking the Limits of Tolerance

    (interesting) (some novel ideas) [T]wo over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travelers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.) I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilization. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really. But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives. But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism. And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant. I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratic-ally regulate reproduction through property rights. Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either. The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment. I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange. Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject. So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now. If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law. And that’s my plan. And it’s working.

  • Universalism: The Love of Man

    [S]orry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

    I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes. There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference. A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher. ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION. Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict. I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia. But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites. Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone. Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Universalism: The Love of Man

    [S]orry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

    I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes. There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference. A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher. ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION. Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict. I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia. But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites. Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone. Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Problem Isn’t Democracy Per Se, But the Combination of Democracy and Women

    COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just cooperation between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy: men and women. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHER WISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION. And under predation, men will win.


    —“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—

    [W]omen. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.

    Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.

    In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.

    I think this is the right analysis.

    For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.

    But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.

    I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.

    Curt

     

    [W]omen are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.

    It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.

    While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).

    Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.

    There are good men and bad men.
    Good women and bad women.
    Good christians and bad christians.
    Good jews and bad jews.

    But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.

    ( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Problem Isn’t Democracy Per Se, But the Combination of Democracy and Women

    COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just cooperation between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy: men and women. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHER WISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION. And under predation, men will win.


    —“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—

    [W]omen. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.

    Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.

    In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.

    I think this is the right analysis.

    For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.

    But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.

    I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.

    Curt

     

    [W]omen are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.

    It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.

    While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).

    Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.

    There are good men and bad men.
    Good women and bad women.
    Good christians and bad christians.
    Good jews and bad jews.

    But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.

    ( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Religions Come In Many Forms

    [T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.

    Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific.