Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • FOR AMERICANS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP IS LIKE BREATHING. It is absolutely impossible t

    FOR AMERICANS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP IS LIKE BREATHING.

    It is absolutely impossible to explain to the rest of the world (particularly Ukrainians) how much better the average american is at business – as a universal general rule – than the minority of those people almost everywhere else.

    Sure, context matters, but there is playing context and there is market function. And the more I travel, the more I understand that it’s not just our risk tolerance alone that makes us different – it’s immersion in a culture of entrepreneurship, wherein social activity itself is always conducted under the premise of selling.

    We are ignorant and untalented on many levels. But the art of voluntary organization of production in the service of consumers is like breathing – it’s just what we do. We don’t really do anything else – we don’t know how.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 12:54:00 UTC

  • PARTNERSHIP AS THE MORAL RULE OF BUSINESS If you are lucky enough to choose the

    PARTNERSHIP AS THE MORAL RULE OF BUSINESS

    If you are lucky enough to choose the right people, and you work hard at it, the feeling of having partners in business, or in the business of building a nest, or in the business of raising a family – there is nothing like it.

    I had a twenty year marriage with a partner I trusted and could talk to. I had a twenty year business relationship with a partner who I could (most of the time) talk to. An I have had investor relationships that you can talk to even under the most hostile of conditions, even when you are absolutely competitors, and you still understand one another and can act with trust.

    Right now I have people who work with me as partners. And when you can just hammer on an issue, and come to one resolution after another with some comfort that you all have done your work of prosecuting an idea to the best extent that you can, there is no feeling in the world like it.

    I see a lot of my fellow younger libertarians and I realize that the only thing stopping them from doing the same, is sufficient capital to prosecute and test an idea. One of the things I will always support the american way of life over any other country,is that it is far easier to do this in american than in any other place in the world I have yet found. our founders were business people and they made it possible and as yet the socialists haven’t succeeded in seeking sufficient rents against us that we are hobbled like europeans are.

    White Europeans worry. White Americans just try. And you can see it spread into black and Hispanic populations. Jews have it by nature. Asians just need permission to separate from the group.

    The secret to partnership is trying to make the other person happier than you make yourself. The secret to marriage is the same. The secret to commerce is the same.

    The secret to life is the same.

    The golden rule – do unto others.

    The silver rule – do not unto others

    And partnership means applying both.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 07:22:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS The answer to the q

    HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS

    The answer to the question of how we obtain liberty is found in transaction costs: At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote and explicit costs of a state, no longer preferable to the local costs of everyday existence?

    You would think that this would have been OBVIOUS to a group of philosophers who depend upon economics, and lay claim to the superiority of economics as the means of achieving prosperity, and therefore upon prosperity for the justification of their arguments.

    But instead they get lost in an endless circular discussion of ‘morality’ – in a remembrance-ritual for a church that has abandoned us to universalism and mysticism.

    Whereas, morality is reducible to the evolutionary necessity of prohibiting the imposition of costs on others.

    And where transaction costs determine the demand for an authority in the form of a state to either impose an order, or to prohibit retaliation, or both.

    And where rule of law reliant upon property-en-toto, provide means of resolution of conflicts (retaliation), and therefore a reduction of demand for an authority to impose order, or prohibit retaliation – the state.

    So the only question is, how much suppression of the imposition of costs is necessary for the rational choice between transaction costs of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial actions, and the payment to an authority that imposes order, metes punishments, and prevents retaliation?

    The answer is, that you’re going to have a society that looks a lot more like classical liberalism than one that looks like anarcho-capitalism.

    In retrospect it’s one of those things that should have been stupidly obvious.

    Apparently the appeal of justifying one’s biases is greater than the appeal of ascertaining necessary causal properties of reality.”

    Justification always rules.

    Curt Doolittle

    Liberty: The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:41:00 UTC

  • ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-

    ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-CRAFT

    (choice words)(great paragraphs)

    —“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith independent of measurement – it is a hand-craft to be mastered by individuals, and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—

    –“Redistribution of dividends from the respect for property rights, and contributions to the normative and physical commons that make the voluntary organization of production we call capitalism possible – is not a matter of altruism. It’s merely a matter of COMPENSATION. Yes we compensate each other in exchange when engaged in investment, production, distribution and trade. But for investment, production, distribution and trade to be possible we must possess property rights, and we possess property rights only because they are paid for by the forgone opportunities of all of us whether we are engaged in production or not. So what is the cost of constructing the voluntary structure of production we call capitalism, then? It is the difference in wealth between anarchy (no respect for property) and the respect for property, minus the wealth created by those engaged in production. The consequence of this logic is quite obvious: taking care of those who respect all norms necessary for the formation of property via dividends is merely just compensation for service performed. Conversely, those who do not, deserve nothing – and those who do not conform to the full spectrum of norms that reduce transaction costs in all walks of life, necessary for the formation of that voluntary organization of production, are not contributing ‘diversity’ but merely thieves. Race is irrelevant to the degree that one’s impulses are marginally indifferent. But norms are not. If you do not adopt the norms you are seeking rents, and are not due dividends.”–

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:11:00 UTC

  • The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus

    The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus say, even critical rationalism, is that your opinion on any particular matter doesn’t really matter much. Its just whether you can actually do it: construct a propertarian argument operationally. I mean, **its really freaking hard***. If you can even construct the argument itself you’re probably pretty close to right. It’s not so much whether you can test the argument – like most logical constructions. Its whether you can even put one together. The hell with justifying it – what passes for testing an argument. The question is whether you can even construct one.

    (Same with reverse Russian mathematics.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 15:19:00 UTC

  • I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the

    I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.

    My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.

    So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.

    But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.

    But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.

    And this cannot and will not happen.

    Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.

    All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.

    The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.

    And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.

    The pendulum has swung as far as it can.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL (deep)(example of w

    CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL

    (deep)(example of why we need operationalism and propertarianism)

    What is the definition of a ‘market’?

    Peeling away layers of human intellectual crutches to find the truth.

    My point is to question whether:

    1) Norm (reduction of transaction costs),

    2) Location (actually: density necessary to decrease opportunity costs), and;

    3) Exchange (actually the transfer of control according to normative rules sufficient to decrease transaction costs);

    In which exchange assumes:

    4) property, and property assumes family structure, and family structure assumes inheritance, and all of which assume division of labor, which in turn assumes a population, and structure of production available to it.

    So, just as an example, why isn’t the definition of a market a set of normative habits, that are the results of the structure of production, and the structure of the family, in relation to the nearby competitors, that encourage people to act and engage in distributed production and consumption, by reducing production costs through division of labor, opportunity costs through proximity and transaction costs through consensus rituals, such that production is rational to engage in, despite the ever decreasing knowledge of particulars, and increasing dependence upon prices alone?

    Something of that nature.

    I think what has been troubling me is the state-fulness ( not as in corporeal but as in fixed properties at a position in time) rather than the conditions that must be overcome in order for us to participate in rational action when we possess so little information.

    And I am trying to figure out how to capture the causal properties rather than the mere names of observations. We humans are fascinated by experiences, but we possess those experiential stimuli because it is necessary for us to acquire, and helpful for us to acquire through cooperation. So any experiential definition is circular. What then, is the cause prior to our experience?

    Reduction of production costs, reduction of opportunity costs, reduction of transaction costs, and through reduction of those costs we act according to the least effort to us.

    Our experiences merely reward us for the exploitation of, and construction of the means, of such cost reductions.

    WE JUST FOLLOW GRAVITY.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 09:46:00 UTC

  • MODERN WARFARE The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mec

    MODERN WARFARE

    The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mechanized weaponry invasion, but population invasion, insurrection invasion, and ideological invasion.

    Once we have nuclear weapons, military invasion is too costly.

    I’ve been studying this problem for quite a few years, and the muslims have demonstrated that they are applying the most advanced military strategy possible: population, insurrection, and ideology as ‘combined arms’.

    Its cheaper, more effective and economically difficult to resist.

    Russia has not conquered Ukraine with tanks, but with insurrection, propaganda, and population.

    This is the superior strategy for conquest in the post-nuclear era.

    The only solution is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:06:00 UTC

  • THE USE OF TERMS Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrum

    THE USE OF TERMS

    Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrumentalism. What happens to tools when you leave them lying around for any idiot to use? Well, they fall victim to the tragedy of the commons – no one takes care of those tools. They abuse them, they misuse them, and they care not what happens to them. And they are rarely if ever suitable for precise work – ever again. But somewhere exist the original precise versions of these tools, or their offspring, that reflect the precision necessary of master craftsmen. These tools are suitable for precise work. So whenever possible its in your interest to find the precise terms – because the origins of terms was that they solved problems for their creators. It is the problems they solved that constitute their necessary functions, not the various uses and abuses and misuses, that the common man as put them through in opening his barrels, cans and bottles. However, we must also keep in mind that dishonest men and well intentioned fools craft tools of deception that are equally precise. And again, is the problem that they solve with their deception that we must discover, not what they intended us to deduce from it. This is the operational approach to language: to discover the problem solved by the statement, not the intention of the author.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 11:05:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE OF CRITICISM – AND LAUNDRY. 🙂 One of the ways you can test whether yo

    THE VALUE OF CRITICISM – AND LAUNDRY. 🙂

    One of the ways you can test whether you are seeking justification for preferences or truth, independent of your preferences, is the degree of criticism you seek. If you’re searching for truth, finding good criticism is like finding a new source of good data. It’s something to be celebrated with excitement. Unfortunately, like good data, good criticism is rare. But in my little world, I see criticism as helping me – as cooperation. As reduction of my labor. As something I do not have to think about, and is therefore off my work load. Or as something I never would have thought of without the help of critics. The problem with criticism, like data from any form of instrumentation, is that it’s loaded and framed by the provider, and unlike instrumental data, to which we applied bias both in the construction of the instrument, and in the interpretation of data, the provider of that criticism is often not only engaged in bias, but either acting as a vector for a lie, or lying himself. The difficulty one faces in celebrating criticism is found only after the rather tedious and often frustrating work of determining whether or not the criticism just includes error and bias, as does all data, but whether or not it includes vectors for lies, or lies. Laundering criticism is dirty painful and socially unpleasant work, and that is why many avoid it. But you either have to do your laundry, or someone has to do it for you

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 01:14:00 UTC