Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Aristocratic Libertarianism vs Ghetto Libertinism

    [Y]ou know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

    So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity. I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism. So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading. And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media. So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty. And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities. We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism. And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • I’m In This Fight For All of Humanity

    [I]’M IN THIS FIGHT, NOT JUST FOR MY TRIBE, BUT FOR ALL OF HUMANITY I don’t really care about race. I acknowledge our differences, and I write about our differences as a small number of differences in cognitive distributions. But race and racism doesn’t help me or anyone else solve any material problem. I know the white nationalist movement uses my work, but I am just as happy if EVERY nationalist movement uses my work, because it will make all of us happier if we do. (Because we can use trade policy to offset our differences in distributions, and within any nation we can use the norms appropriate for our distributions.)

    But bitching about other people’s evolutionary strategies is just gossip. It means nothing. It doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t provide a political solution to the problem of prosperity, kin selection, beneficial evolution, and the ultimate achievement of mankind. So my objective is to provide solutions. And those solutions should assist all of us regardless of our race and tribe. Because all our races and tribes are stuck on this planet together. And as such, we need a way of cooperating, even if that way of cooperating is to peaceably choose not to cooperate. And Truth is enough. If we eliminate deceit from the public discourse, and eliminate theft from the public trough, then that will force the outcome you probably desire. But I will not engage in racial gossip. I am just as interested in helping Whites, Africans, Asians, and Indonesians, achieve liberty and prosperity as I am my own people. We had enough of this damage done by the Enlightenment. And I just want to fix it for everyone. OK? Good. So I support nationalism. All of it. For everyone. Becuase the family defeats the corporation as a means of human reproductive cooperation.

  • I’m In This Fight For All of Humanity

    [I]’M IN THIS FIGHT, NOT JUST FOR MY TRIBE, BUT FOR ALL OF HUMANITY I don’t really care about race. I acknowledge our differences, and I write about our differences as a small number of differences in cognitive distributions. But race and racism doesn’t help me or anyone else solve any material problem. I know the white nationalist movement uses my work, but I am just as happy if EVERY nationalist movement uses my work, because it will make all of us happier if we do. (Because we can use trade policy to offset our differences in distributions, and within any nation we can use the norms appropriate for our distributions.)

    But bitching about other people’s evolutionary strategies is just gossip. It means nothing. It doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t provide a political solution to the problem of prosperity, kin selection, beneficial evolution, and the ultimate achievement of mankind. So my objective is to provide solutions. And those solutions should assist all of us regardless of our race and tribe. Because all our races and tribes are stuck on this planet together. And as such, we need a way of cooperating, even if that way of cooperating is to peaceably choose not to cooperate. And Truth is enough. If we eliminate deceit from the public discourse, and eliminate theft from the public trough, then that will force the outcome you probably desire. But I will not engage in racial gossip. I am just as interested in helping Whites, Africans, Asians, and Indonesians, achieve liberty and prosperity as I am my own people. We had enough of this damage done by the Enlightenment. And I just want to fix it for everyone. OK? Good. So I support nationalism. All of it. For everyone. Becuase the family defeats the corporation as a means of human reproductive cooperation.

  • I Love Everybody. So Go Hang Some Politician 🙂

    [I] Love everybody. I’m a Christian.  That’s what it means to be Christian. It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans. Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.

    I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon. But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is due the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society. Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • I Love Everybody. So Go Hang Some Politician 🙂

    [I] Love everybody. I’m a Christian.  That’s what it means to be Christian. It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans. Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.

    I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon. But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is due the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society. Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • The Free Market is a Fiat Construct, Produced by Organized Violence

    [T]he free market itself is a fiat construct. Just as property rights are a fiat construct. Morality, Property, and Free Markets require forcible imposition. The condition of primitive man is one of overlapping rents. Paternalism, Non-kin-Morality, Property and Trade were institutional innovations all of which required the organized application of violence to construct. Neither violence nor fiat are ‘bads’. They are means, not ends. One either constructs a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, distribution, and trade by the imposition of property rights, morality, and free markets or one fails to do so by constructing a network of rents.

    Fiat criticism is non-substantive. The natural order of man is an equilibrium between static rents and innovative freedoms. To construct liberty requires a constant application of organized violence to resist the equilibrating forces of rent seekers. Pacifist Libertinism is an attempt by means of obscurantist loading, framing, and overloading to achieve cheaply, by sophisticated gossip, that which can only be achieved by organized violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • The Free Market is a Fiat Construct, Produced by Organized Violence

    [T]he free market itself is a fiat construct. Just as property rights are a fiat construct. Morality, Property, and Free Markets require forcible imposition. The condition of primitive man is one of overlapping rents. Paternalism, Non-kin-Morality, Property and Trade were institutional innovations all of which required the organized application of violence to construct. Neither violence nor fiat are ‘bads’. They are means, not ends. One either constructs a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, distribution, and trade by the imposition of property rights, morality, and free markets or one fails to do so by constructing a network of rents.

    Fiat criticism is non-substantive. The natural order of man is an equilibrium between static rents and innovative freedoms. To construct liberty requires a constant application of organized violence to resist the equilibrating forces of rent seekers. Pacifist Libertinism is an attempt by means of obscurantist loading, framing, and overloading to achieve cheaply, by sophisticated gossip, that which can only be achieved by organized violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • ECONOMICS OF CONCURRENCY

    [C]oncurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.

    In the following post I analyze the economics of concurrency, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.

    (If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory.  I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and  social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.) )

     

    Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:

    1. excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
    2. excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
    3. precision in phrasing,
    4. parsimony in phrasing,
    5. shared, similar, experiences,
    6. unshared, differing, experiences,
    7. similar time preference

    Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with:

    a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
    b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or;
    c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or;
    d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely;

    and converges on having:

    e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and;
    f) overlapping future planning horizons, and;
    g) similarity in future time orientation.

    So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, unconstructively.

     

    Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?

    Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.

  • ECONOMICS OF CONCURRENCY

    [C]oncurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.

    In the following post I analyze the economics of concurrency, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.

    (If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory.  I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and  social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.) )

     

    Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:

    1. excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
    2. excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
    3. precision in phrasing,
    4. parsimony in phrasing,
    5. shared, similar, experiences,
    6. unshared, differing, experiences,
    7. similar time preference

    Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with:

    a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
    b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or;
    c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or;
    d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely;

    and converges on having:

    e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and;
    f) overlapping future planning horizons, and;
    g) similarity in future time orientation.

    So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, unconstructively.

     

    Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?

    Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.

  • I LOVE EVERYBODY It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It

    I LOVE EVERYBODY

    It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans.

    Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.

    I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon.

    But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society.

    Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-03 14:17:00 UTC