Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Economy: Family Business and State Are Just Matters of Scale

    (h/t Andy Curzon )(edited and revised)

    [I]f we look at Austrian business cycle theory as merely an instance of the cycle of ‘flocking and schooling’ that follows any kind of change in knowledge that as a consequence produces an opportunity, then the century of pseudoscience was just another business process by which to exploit a market opportunity, and it played out as a series of eddies and pools, which are currently in the process of maximum exploitation and collapse.

    And so governments are just temporary corporations exploiting business opportunities. And management(government), employees(bureaucracy), customers(consumers), and investors(citizens) all compete for the maximum returns.

    This matches all political theory throughout history that suggests that people seek opportunities until it is possible to seek rents, and rents expand until the civilization collapses. It also matches the data that without private(shareholder) public(corporation) alliance no city state became economically competitive.

    I disagree with Diamond for example, since I am pretty sure the reason for these collapses is a breakdown of incentives : the information system that allows for the organization of production. I would say that civilizations collapse either due to extreme efficiency followed by shocks (1200 BC), or the equivalent of cancer: damage to the information system that eliminates the relationship between production and consumption.

    But since humans flock and school, then break off in smaller schools, to exploit opportunities, we are pretty good at a sort of fractal exploitation of every possible opportunity until it’s been exhausted.

    I suspect either an expansion of statism in order to extend the status quo, or an upcoming era of increased statist tyranny in the name of order. If not I suspect collapse of the western control of commerce and trade, and an expansive war or system of wars, to fill the vacuum; and an acceleration of civil wars to take advantage of change at home.

    It is better to study businesses than states, because the model is sufficient and the data is better.

  • FALSE EQUIVALENCE OF COMPARING EXPORTS OF RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN POLITICAL INFLUEN

    http://takimag.com/article/a_russophobic_rant_from_congress_patrick_buchanan#axzz3LnAORWS3ON FALSE EQUIVALENCE OF COMPARING EXPORTS OF RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN POLITICAL INFLUENCE

    (reposted from original site)

    Pat.

    You posit a moral equivalency where none exists. Here is why:

    US *Demonstrated* Postwar Policy Assumes the Following

    1) BORDERS – states who don’t respect borders can lead to world wars.

    2) HUMAN RIGHTS – states who don’t respect human rights export problems to the rest of us.

    3) CONSUMER CAPITALISM – consumer capitalism is in the interests of ordinary people, because it will raise them out of ignorance and poverty, and more importantly, it creates states that can be competed with, and cooperated with, economically rather than militarily – this is profound because just as under consumer capitalism the market competition and conflict produce beneficial ends for consumers, so does does market competition between states produce beneficial ends for consumers since it forces a choice between consumption and expenditure on the ambitions of the central government – not the least of which is military expansion.

    BUT ALSO OUR FAILURES

    4) DEMOCRACY – it is our evangelism of democracy under the myth that all people desire and are capable of it, rather than, that northern europeans were uniquely capable of self rule for historical reasons:

    a) we have a high trust society build through extensive outbreeding. (See Emmanuel Todd)

    b) we have had centuries of suppression of the breeding of the underclasses under manorialism and its predecessors (See Clark and Todd)

    c) We have had a unique history of the jury of our peers, rather than authority, for what appears to be more than 4000 years, and the common law for nearly as long – and as such a fairly unique ability and cognizance of truth and truth telling that separates us from the rest of the world.

    The rest of the world, even southern Europe, cannot accomplish self rule because of pervasive corruption (See Fukuyama).

    RUSSIA

    Russia is a very, very, low trust society that DEPENDS upon systemic corruption to function, but that imposes corruption on its client states. Russia actively imposes brutality, murder, genocide on low trust countries to create military and commercial order necessary for low trust peoples to cooperate.

    Conversely eastern europeans, especially Ukrainians, are NOT low trust peoples, any more so than Poles who are indistinguishable from Ukrainians, or even northern Italians (whom despite being largely germanic, the western Slavs resemble in many ways). So, Russian export of low trust means of government onto middle trust countries that can easily develop into high trust countries is by any definition evil and immoral, (they are Christian here in the east after all, and christianity breeds wealth because it breeds trust.) Just as American export of high trust means of government into low trust polities is harmful to them – they are incapable of self rule. They are incapable of self rule in many cases because they still practice inbreeding to control property in the family. (This is what prevents India from advancing more rapidly as well.)

    THE HIGH VS LOW TRUST PEOPLES

    So this is the difference between American and Russian political exports: If you export good government onto a medium or high trust people they they will flourish. If you export a low trust means of government on a low trust polity, they will also benefit somewhat – Russia’s southern neighbors did even if eastern europeans were murdered by the millions because of it.

    Neither the Russians nor the americans are aware of Emmanuel Todd’s insights: That the only way to create a high trust society is the combination of consumer capitalism and outlawing near-breeding and inbreeding. Because as soon as you see everyone as a potential customer, business associate, mate or family member, trust must increase. Just as if you inbreed and rely upon relationships and corruption and parasitism, you will live in poverty (see Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society).

    Most of the world lives in poverty because they have not adopted the christian ethic of treating all men as members of your family. This is the the first secret of christianity The second is the outlawing of cousin marriage by the church. The third was the granting of property rights to women by the church. The fourth was the construction of chivalry so that status only achievable by martial means was achievable by acts of public service.

    These activities by the church were not prescient, but practical, and when combined with out indo-european heroism, birth control, truth telling, juries, and local sovereignty made us capable of self rule.

    But none of these would have been possible had it not been for the aristocratic egalitarian ethos (see Ricardo Duchesne), which states that any man who wishes to fight for sovereignty must be aided: we must insure anyone who asks for defense as a means of increasing our numbers. We have been insuring one another’s property for thousands of years by the point of our spears, swords, bayonets and bullets. It is how we keep our numbers – we have always been a minority on the western edge of the world, and for most of history of poor one. Yet able to defeat greater numbers and and wealthier opponents.

    Other countries cannot self rule because they have not experienced any of these advances. In fact, they find it heinous and prefer their familialism. And given our differences in reproductive rates, they may hold the correct evolutionary strategy – and not us. Western high trust society, high consumption and low birth rates, are not mathematically compatible with immigration of low trust peoples, dependence upon growth of consumption, and extensive redistribution. It is mathematically inescapable suicide (which you know, I know.)

    So while in general I share your ideological position on all but marginal matters, it is this one that I think you err in: you are presuming we are strong enough on our own, and abandoning our aristocratic egalitarian strategy of keeping up our numbers by supporting the liberty of any who will fight along side us to preserve it. Instead we must always seek to increase our numbers – of high trust Christians.

    Eastern European Christians are ‘us’. Ukrainians are ‘us’. Russians are steppe barbarians that understand only power, and truth is concept for fools. For Russians, “Words are just sounds you make to distract people so that you can defeat them’.

    This difference in trust and truth is what separates Russians from westerners: they are a mix between us and the Chinese. Thy are a despotic low trust people with european aspirations and european mythos character, but who have been influenced by mongol, muslim and turkic despotism such that they remain low trust people – what we mean by ‘barbarians’. They never had our commerce and outbreeding so they never developed trust and universalism.

    Unfortunately Gorbachev’s vision to unite the circumpolar people would have been successful and beneficial for the world could we have achieved it. The only thing keeping Russians from despotism is 100 thousand western europeans running their laws for three generations.

    Which is exactly what it takes to transform a country to western levels unless it can construct a powerful christian minority capable of taking rule long enough to transform the culture’s expectations into one that depends upon property rights, human rights, and dependable rule of law.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine,

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-13 15:46:00 UTC

  • You know I couldn’t care less about social justice and equality. I despise the t

    You know I couldn’t care less about social justice and equality. I despise the terms and the feelings that inspire them. But when a young man who is willing and able to work, and work hard, to feed his family cannot find work, and the only reason that he cannot is low trust, no credit, and low economic velocity – that makes me angry.

    I know too many men here who want to work, are willing to work, at ANY work, to feed and house their families, that cannot find it. And they cannot find it while government bureaucrats seek pervasive rents and participate in pervasive corruption.

    And it makes me want to kill every living soul in that government that I can get my hands on.

    We need to bring back the guillotine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:49:00 UTC

  • ECONOMY, BUSINESS AND STATE (h/t Andy Curzon )(edited and revised) If we look at

    ECONOMY, BUSINESS AND STATE

    (h/t Andy Curzon )(edited and revised)

    If we look at Austrian business cycle theory as merely an instance of the cycle of ‘flocking and schooling’ that follows any kind of change in knowledge that as a consequence produces an opportunity, then the century of pseudoscience was just another business process by which to exploit a market opportunity, and it played out as a series of eddies and pools, which are currently in the process of maximum exploitation and collapse.

    And so governments are just temporary corporations exploiting business opportunities. And management(government), employees(bureaucracy), customers(consumers), and investors(citizens) all compete for the maximum returns.

    This matches all political theory throughout history that suggests that people seek opportunities until it is possible to seek rents, and rents expand until the civilization collapses. It also matches the data that without private(shareholder) public(corporation) alliance no city state became economically competitive.

    I disagree with Diamond for example, since I am pretty sure the reason for these collapses is a breakdown of incentives : the information system that allows for the organization of production. I would say that civilizations collapse either due to extreme efficiency followed by shocks (1200 BC), or the equivalent of cancer: damage to the information system that eliminates the relationship between production and consumption.

    But since humans flock and school, then break off in smaller schools, to exploit opportunities, we are pretty good at a sort of fractal exploitation of every possible opportunity until it’s been exhausted.

    I suspect either an expansion of statism in order to extend the status quo, or an upcoming era of increased statist tyranny in the name of order. If not I suspect collapse of the western control of commerce and trade, and an expansive war or system of wars, to fill the vacuum; and an acceleration of civil wars to take advantage of change at home.

    It is better to study businesses than states, because the model is sufficient and the data is better.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:20:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION. Yes, my work

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION.

    Yes, my work is getting clearer. Yes it is getting easier for BOTH you and I to understand. Well, but what’s the reason why I had a lot of trouble articulating my ideas in the past? I could sense the pattern and talk about it with autistic forms of symbolic analogy, but I could not convert it into more accessible language because I hadn’t yet been able to identify and model all the axis I was working from. Today I can. And pretty soon I’ll be able to reduce it to a few simple rules. But going from autistic speech (pattern intuition without rational comprehension of those patterns) is just not a very suitable means of argument. And the art is in patiently and deliberately attempting to state the arguments operationally (using new existentially possible frameworks to build upon) rather than meaningfully (using extant imaginary frameworks to build upon).

    I don’t really ‘think’ of things in any material sense as much as gather information and ‘catch’ intuitions that are usually too subtle and complex to ignore . The difference which has caused me some difficulty in life is that I intuit operationally correspondent (operational) patterns, but I have no intuition for experiential (meaningful) patterns what soever. My brain does not allow me to use empathy as a shortcut. This particular blindness means that I am somewhat limited to ascertainable facts instead of experiences – I just don’t HAVE those experiences to work from. Whereas ordinary people have a problem seeing beyond experiences because they’re so clear, influential and meaningful.

    Autistic worlds are very different. There is a lot LESS in them. So we have less to calculate with. If you look at it that way it’s not so much that people like me are massively smarter than people with similar IQ’s. But it’s that we only see non-experiential signals, and as such are sort of specialized tools – conceptual warrior ants in the human tribal hive.

    I think it’s wrong to express this as a disease or illness rather than a specialization. And I think it’s also wrong to to say autistic thought is ‘more internal’, rather than we are just working with the data we have to work with. In my case it has been emotionally painful but personally fruitful.

    The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:10:00 UTC

  • Only Landed People Create Monuments and Art

    UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIAN STATISM


    [C]alifornia. A very desirable geography. The best other than France. In both cases the geography is a natural resource exploitable by the state.


    As I said to Ron Manners: natural resources make you a slave because States must defend them. Diasporic peoples avoid these high costs at the expense of permanent insecurity. The golden mean (happy median) is Liberty – prevention of the state while also holding land.

    Only landed people create monuments and art.   And Europe is a vast, open air museum. 

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.