Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Transaction Cost Theory of Government

    PROPERTARIANISM: THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT
    (second draft) (closer)

    [H]istory says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.

    And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.

    The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.

    The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?

    To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.

    There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?

    This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.

    The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.

    As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • The Transaction Cost Theory of Government

    PROPERTARIANISM: THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT
    (second draft) (closer)

    [H]istory says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.

    And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.

    The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.

    The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?

    To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.

    There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?

    This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.

    The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.

    As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • HOW TO PRESENT MISES AND RAND IN THE 20th CENTURY? I would present it (as I do)

    HOW TO PRESENT MISES AND RAND IN THE 20th CENTURY?

    I would present it (as I do) as a last ditch desperate attempt to reach the enlightenment utopia embodied in both cosmopolitan middle class universalism, and anglo puritanical middle class universalism.

    But that both movements were failures and had to be, because universalism and equality are merely utilitarian merchant philosophies of self interest made possible by temporary economic advantage.

    And that the dream of a market of everyone or the dream of an aristocracy of everybody, are ideological fancies that are politically untenable, largely undesirable, and competitively unsuccessful.

    As such the virtue of the program is limited to the insights into cooperation made possible by information. And that our institutional problem across the past four millennia remains the constant need to improve means of information use and distribution as the scale and diversity of the division of labor expands analogistically to fractal evolution into all parts of human existence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-10 08:22:00 UTC

  • THE KREMLIN TOOLKIT – INFORMATION WARFARE • The Kremlin exploits the idea of fre

    THE KREMLIN TOOLKIT – INFORMATION WARFARE

    • The Kremlin exploits the idea of freedom of information to inject disinformation into society. The effect is not to persuade (as in classic public diplomacy) or earn credibility but to sow confusion via conspiracy theories and proliferate falsehoods.

    • The West’s acquiescence to sheltering corrupt Russian money demoralizes the Russian opposition while making the West more dependent on the Kremlin.

    • Unlike in the Cold War, when Soviets largely supported leftist groups, a fluid approach to ideology now allows the Kremlin to simultaneously back far-left and far-right movements, greens, anti-globalists and financial elites. The aim is to exacerbate divides and create an echo chamber of Kremlin support.

    • The Kremlin exploits the openness of liberal democracies to use the Orthodox Church and expatriate NGOs to further aggressive foreign policy goals.

    • There is an attempt to co-opt parts of the expert community in the West via such bodies as the Valdai Forum, which critics accuse of swapping access for acquiescence. Other senior Western experts are given positions in Russian companies and become de facto communications representatives of the Kremlin.

    • Financial PR firms and hired influencers help the Kremlin’s cause by arguing that “finance and politics should be kept separate.” But whereas the liberal idea of globalization sees money as politically neutral, with global commerce leading to peace and interdependence, the Kremlin uses the openness of global markets as an opportunity to employ money, commerce and energy as foreign policy weapons.

    • The Kremlin is increasing its “information war” budget. RT, which includes multilingual rolling news, a wire service and radio channels, has an estimated budget of over $300 million, set to increase by 41% to include German- and French- language channels. There is increasing use of social media to spread disinformation and trolls to attack publications and personalities.

    • The weaponization of information, culture and money is a vital part of the Kremlin’s hybrid, or non-linear, war, which combines the above elements with covert and small-scale military operations. The conflict in Ukraine saw non-linear war in action. Other rising authoritarian states will look to copy Moscow’s model of hybrid war—and the West has no institutional or analytical tools to deal with it.

    Defining Western Weak Spots

    • The Kremlin applies different approaches to different regions across the world, using local rivalries and resentments to divide and conquer.

    • The Kremlin exploits systemic weak spots in the Western system, providing a sort of X-ray of the underbelly of liberal democracy.

    • Offshore zones and opaque shell companies help sustain Kremlin corruption and aid its influence. For journalists, the threat of libel means few publications are ready to take on Kremlin-connected figures.

    • Lack of transparency in funding and the blurring of distinctions between think tanks and lobbying helps the Kremlin push its agendas forward without due scrutiny.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-10 05:15:00 UTC

  • Propertarian reasoning is a formal logic. Once you understand it, it isn’t like

    Propertarian reasoning is a formal logic. Once you understand it, it isn’t like dodgy philosophy or dishonest mysticism: you don’t really need to be very cunning.

    Either some proposition is constructable out of human operations on property or it isn’t.

    Once you know the four categories of property that humans demonstrate and the different reproductive strategies we demonstrate, and the different group evolutionary strategies we demonstrate, you can pretty much explain all human political activity.

    And this is different from the physical sciences in the sense that we don’t know the first principles of the universe, but we do know the first principles of man: acquire, defend, cooperate, divide labor, develop information systems for extending cooperation – and justify our reproductive strategies constantly for the purpose of negotiating our cooperation.

    Man is simple it turns out.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-10 02:54:00 UTC

  • THE WESTERN MISALLOCATION OF INVESTMENT IN THE WESTERN PORTFOLIO (another way of

    THE WESTERN MISALLOCATION OF INVESTMENT IN THE WESTERN PORTFOLIO

    (another way of putting it)(becoming levantines)

    We have over invested in improving the structure of production to the point at which we are causing catastrophic harm.

    We have over invested in government to the point at which we are causing catastrophic harm to the family and civilization.

    We have over-invested in the export of rule of law and democracy to the point at which we have caused harm.

    We have over-invested in the academy to the point at which it causes systemic harm on a daily basis.

    We have UNDER invested in the family, in discipline, in training, and in education.

    This over-investment is the result of fiat credit – and it is not investment at this point -it is merely burning down four thousand years of the west’s accumulated cultural capital. We are becoming Levantines.

    **Do less interference. Consume less. Spend more time on your children.**

    Cultures save because they can. Other cultures don’t save and invest, because they can’t. We created commons because we could. They didn’t because they can’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-09 03:59:00 UTC

  • NORTH SEA TRUTH VS LEVANTINE CRITIQUE (profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(

    NORTH SEA TRUTH VS LEVANTINE CRITIQUE

    (profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology)

    Once you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion.

    However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law.

    Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies.

    The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations.

    You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 21:30:00 UTC

  • INTUITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE THE WHITE LIE Once our minds could evolve sel

    INTUITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE THE WHITE LIE

    Once our minds could evolve self awareness, our bodies had to evolve a means of persuading us to do that which we would not willingly do if we rationally conceived it.

    The idea that rational insight into nature is beneficial is only half true. Once aware of death look what we do about it. But if we were cognizant of our position in the hierarchy, or any other number of truths, we would not so easily fulfill nature’s demands upon us to reproduce.

    of course our intuitions lie to us.

    Its necessary.

    Just as it’s necessary to tell children nice white lies so they remain optimistic.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 13:02:00 UTC

  • ON INTERVENTION (reposted from fb/paleolibertarian) If we wish to extend propert

    ON INTERVENTION

    (reposted from fb/paleolibertarian)

    If we wish to extend property rights to others we must always intervene, else when we need intervention ourselves, no one is likewise obligated to intervene on our behalf.

    No man is an island. Britain, North America, and Australia temporarily can act as islands due to luck of geography, and the diasporic peoples can always run to hide in another ‘tent’. But as a general rule – a theory of human action, we cannot take exceptions and under the pretense of rules.

    The question is not whether we intervene, but whether our intervention increases property rights, and whether those we assist in obtaining property rights enter into a contract for mutual defense of property rights.

    There exist no other circumstances under which property rights can be brought into existence by human action, other than by contractual exchange. and there exist no opportunities to bring them into existence other than offers of intervention. Because offers of intervention constitute offers of reciprocal contract.

    Aristocracy expanded to the lower classes by adopting the price of entry: reciprocal defense of property. And that is the only means by which liberty has ever, and shall ever, be obtained.

    Liberty cannot be had at a discount. One pays for it, or one seeks to obtain it by fraud. Period.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Just now · Like

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 05:16:00 UTC

  • Self-Criticism and Self-Reformation – Not Racism or Anti-Semitism

    [I] am critical of every one of the enlightenment groups for their stupidity.

    So I am not interested in racism or anti-semitism so much as self-improvement. I argue only against the accidental application of jewish in-group ethics and argument structure as pseudoscience in an era where our western extant means of logic and argument at human scale required our retention of european testimonial truth and operationalism because at that time our intellectual problems in all fields exceeded human scale.  This is a profound statement if you grasp it.

    I am not anti semitic. Just the opposite. I’m a compatibilist. I do think the Jewish century is over with, and that it was tragically harmful. But if you want to get involved in or discuss racism or whatever, then that is not what I do. I think it’s always the wrong question. The answer is why you subject yourself to internal political competition – not why others pursue a better life for themselves.

    **I do not think Jews understood what they were doing any more than we anglo europeans understood what we were doing, or the germans or the french understood what they were doing. We all just justified what we had done before in the new context in order to maintain group cohesion.**

    My effort is to make us understand what happened, and why Jewish pseudoscientific thought in all disciplines was so easy to attack and destroy western civilization with – for the SECOND TIME.

    What didn’t we learn the first time?  What have we learned or failed to learn this time?

    *Propertarianism* 

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine