Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM Now what gets lost in my political rh

    THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM

    Now what gets lost in my political rhetoric at times is that my driving moral bias is **the prevention of conflict without incurring sacrifice**. In other words, by accident of a puritanical family with a lot of internal fighting between my rather spoiled martial upper-class alcoholic father, and my rather disciplined, humble, temperate, and poor catholic mother.

    The pacifist solution is to tolerate substantial losses in order to avoid conflict that has higher losses. And as long as you live poorly and reproduce vastly this strategy works. Conversely, for small numbers, who breed slowly, to live well, they must not tolerate sacrifice or parasitism, and must force productivity. Otherwise they must resort to predation. So this competitive strategy can be represented as a triangular compromise between population, prosperity, and the expense of either submission or prohibition. (Yes I should graph this out. But you know I am kind of overloaded at the moment so it will have to wait. Basically, something on the order of: x=population, y=technology, 00->XY demand is tolerance for parasitism, Y(n), X(n) curve is tolerance which should form an X with tolerance. )

    But so my moral disposition, my moral INTUITION turns out to be an involuntary advocacy for conflict reduction without parasitism.

    As such I see the world as a sort of donut,with the aristocracy from all cultures in the hole, and the classes radiating outward, with further difference from the center representing the degree of normative interdependence of people within a tribal group, and the

    Aristocracy is marginally indifferent the world around, if we mean, demonstrated ability in production, distribution and trade.

    So this means that bringing aristocracy together, and capital APART to people is just a matter of reducing the cost of capital enough, and allowing elites to accomplish this on the behalf of their own people without too much interference from one another.

    It is very costly and dangerous to bring lower classes tog ether, and it is very beneficial to bring aristocracy together. The cost of integrating people who require normative similarities, where those normative similarities reflect biological differences in ability and preference is simply too high for more than fractions of the population. However, the only reason to move people from low trust to high trust is the failure of local governments to construct rule of law sufficient that the people do not require relocation (hiring nobility, or moving to nobility), just as we cannot move capital to people because their upper classes have failed.

    Democracy is of no value whatsoever, since it merely means that we create nothing but negative international incentives. This is counter to common intuition and current mythos, but it is demonstrably true, and logically very difficult to counter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:03:00 UTC

  • THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSI

    THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSITIONS

    There are categories of problems you cannot solve within the academy. The academy is hostile to many of them. Just as the church was hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. Just as the state is hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. In the case of the church and the state, they have adopted the mantra of entrepreneurial class without grasping its limits: we must serve customers, however we may not produce externalities. Both academy and state, which possess international rather than regional scope seek the best customers, whereas church as local franchises sought the best deals on behalf of their investors (consumers).

    This contradiction of incentives was caused by the enlightenment fallacy of the island people (the British – my people) and is why they divorced from the german civilization.

    It was a very profitable means of suicide.

    We cannot look at the anglo value system as ‘good’, we can only look at the anglo empirical methods in philosophy, science, commerce, and law as good. The german method is false,but the values are ‘good’. The cosmopolitan values and method are bad and false.

    CULTURE………..STRATEGY……………..METHOD……..

    British………………False(Suicidal)…………True (ratio-empirical)

    German……………True(Optimum)…………False (rationalism)

    Jewish……………..False(Cancerous)……..False (pseudoscientific)

    The problem is that the germans, once conquered, adopted enough of the British strategy, and the jewish strategy, while they have been occupied in the postwar anglo era, that they are acting suicidally as well.

    The only way to fix this problem is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 05:06:00 UTC

  • I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements,

    I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements, but that within any universal statement tolerating a distribution. This is necessary for the construction of general rules of communication.

    I have had numerous death threats, and been asked to run for office frequently, and I’ve had people stalk me, and I see nothing special about women with the same problem.

    Women are a dead weight in battle and thats the evidence and the evidence is in – women get men killed.

    The value women provide in any conflict is the provision of supplies, staffing the work force, and providing care taking – and losing their sons.

    But there is no equal to the loss of life and limb. So no, this is a statement that has no merit.

    Nature produces many more males than females for precisely this purpose and under stress females produce more males, and under prosperity more females.

    We evolved this way. Men are where nature experiments and we are disposable. ON the other hand possibly because we know we are disposable, we are highly sensitive to politics – so that we cannot be easily disposed of.

    Women on the other hand evolved to make sure they were safe enough to care for their offspring even if their off spring are harmful to the population (see the stats on mothers defense of serial killers and criminals vs fathers)

    So my point is that we feel what our genes instruct us to feel, and our words are just negotiations.

    The family and one vote per family neutralizez the use of government to conduct war between the genders.

    I think this is one of the insights I have tried to provide. And I will never convince women that their offspring are ugly, stupid, and a terrible additoni to the gene pool, and net drain on humanity. I mean, can you imagine women actually looking at their children that way?

    I cannot imagine not. Women used to expose their children if they could not care for them without self harm. Now they don’t need to expose them, just let others pay for them.

    The cost of this is being paid by men who will now see their old ages in poverty, and loneliness.

    Anyway, that is why men will fight. to the death, or why other men will conquer any group that manages to succeed at the feminist program.

    It’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 08:09:00 UTC

  • PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT –“Should we only promote exchanges t

    PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

    –“Should we only promote exchanges that are net Pareto improvements?”—

    I think that we should only facilitate exchanges that produce no (known) negative externalities (those which cause involuntary transfers); and that if we facilitate exchange in such a matter, we will achieve a Nash equilibrium. (as we did with monogamy, ad as we have with the market.)

    But I think a Pareto optimum is a Keynesian, Platonic, Analytic fallacy: such a thing is unknowable, and causes negative externalities no matter what we do. Our problem is not good collective decision making (the fallacy of the enlightenment) but facilitating moral exchanges between classes with heterogeneous interests – just as we do in the market.

    The problem is that we cannot produce all goods and services in the market because someone always experiences loss of opportunity. Whereas in the production of commons we are generally prohibited from the consumption or privatization of the commons – and as such the majority of effort going into the commons is to pool capital and prohibit its consumption. The incentives of the market for goods and services are the precise inverse. Competition for and consumption of commons merely prohibits their construction by disincentivizing their production. Whereas in the market, lost opportunity (or selling at a lost) is useful information that provides incentives to make better use of your own and others’ resources.

    The ‘we’ if their is to be such a thing in government, is to advocate for exchanges, not monopoly rules by which we advance the interests of some by mere majority rule.

    Each imposition by force, is a lost opportunity for exchange. Each forced imposition, constitutes a lost opportunity for exchange, which in turn is a loss of opportunity to create a moral society free of involuntary transfers.

    The only law is thou shalt not steal or cause loss, directly or indirectly. As such all political decisions are decidable. The poor can always contribute. The fallacy is that their contribution must come in in the production of goods and services, rather than in the production of the voluntary organization of production that we call morality, property rights, and the market. It also assumes that maintenance of the commons (which is what makes a place beautiful and desirable) is the province of those who engage in production of goods and services, rather than those who engage in the production of the commons both physical, and normative, and legal: the voluntary organization of production.

    Arguing otherwise is to say that someone must pay the high costs of forgoing consumption (theft, free riding, privatization, rent seeking) for permission to enter the labor force, rather than permission to participate in the market.

    We do it wrong so to speak. That does not mean we cannot do it right.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:28:00 UTC

  • AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS (reposted from economics group) (possibly

    AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS

    (reposted from economics group) (possibly profound for students of economics)

    Why Stiglitz? He is a critique of BOTH Friedman AND the neo-Keynesians. So why is he important in my view? Even if he hasn’t solve ‘the big problem’? Because there isn’t a problem to be found, or a solution in where they’re searching for one.

    THE BROADER PICTURE

    But the take away from all of the recent economic debate, is that we have not solved the Austrian question of the business cycle (does government make it worse), or the Western Conservative question of the relationship between genetics and norms, and whether **any and all economic propositions** that do not account for genetic and normative differences are false. (And dysgenic for that matter.)

    The progressive moral sentiments (female reproductive strategy – survival of offspring regardless of merit) and the conservative sentiments (male reproductive strategy – competitive families and tribes) are currently at war in politics, because by the introduction of women into the polity, the government no longer represents families with homogenous if paternal interests, but government has become a venue for the competition between not only races and classes, but also between male/meritocratic and female/dysgenic reproductive strategies.

    This is the reason for the failure of democracy: while law must be practiced with individuals, the state must be practiced with families. The introduction of women into the government rather than into their own house of government, was as destructive as the dissolution of the differences between the monarchy, landed nobility, middle class businessmen (the commons), and our failure to add a house of proletarians (dependents).

    With these two acts under the fallacy of equality of interest and ability we eliminated the possibility of government to function as a market between families with dissimilar economic interests, and instead, made it a venue for the conduct of oppression by one group of interests over another.

    There are no adequate compromises, because as structured, current economics and politics produce undecidable propositions that we mistakenly assume are a problem which further analysis will solve by providing us with pareto optimums.

    But this is an equivalent to the search for the philosopher’s stone, or the alchemical conversion of lead into gold. It is merely an exercise in collecting more data, of greater precision without adding insight.

    The fact of the matter is that the enlightenment project has been a scientific success and a political failure – we cannot improve upon the family, the market, and houses of government that conduct exchanges of commons’ between classes of different material ability and interests.

    We need not search for non-existent (platonic) Pareto Optimums. We must merely conduct exchanges needed to produce Nash equilibria that are calculable by individuals of their own volition. This will restore some eugenics to the society ad the expense of the lower classes. But that is to the benefit of all mankind even if it is not something everyone wants to hear, because it deprives them of the cheap status signal of looking down upon others and feeling higher by the mere existence of the inferior and unfortunate, rather than having to take risks and actions necessary to produce something by their own ability and hands.

    There is nothing for economists to discover except this principle.

    (I’ll be here waiting having tea with Hegel, when they do.)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    RANKINGS OF ECONOMISTS

    Ranking of economists by citation.

    https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.nbcites.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:17:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    I use autistic speech myself. I have to work, not to. If I am ill or tired, then forget it. I don’t have a choice. It is a technical description of the relationship between meaning, analogy and grammar just as poetic is. In autistic speech we intuit systematic and often valid relations between concepts, but lack the means to verbally express those relations in normative vocabulary and grammar – and a such we leave these verbal fragments open for deductive association for others; just as we leave them open for deductive association for ourselves, because deductive association is sufficient for us even if we lack vocabulary and grammar. (in other words there is a pretty vast delta between what we consider spatial reasoning or perhaps better said, non-verbal reasoning, and verbal facility or what we call verbal intelligence.)

    Idea generation for me is a trivial exercise. It’s purely intuitive – I fill my mind with information and just let my mind’s obsession with order do its work. In this sense, I don’t really ‘work’ at solving problems. (In fact I have to insulate myself a bit to make sure I am only exposed to so many at a time.)

    But the act of transforming those ideas into normal, rational, and scientific speech is a brutally challenging act of discipline. I can articulate ideas not because it is natural to me, but because I have spent my adult life, actively attempting to retain my autistic intuition while learning how to express that intuition in rational terms.

    Propertarianism solved the problem of autistic speech for me because it is unloaded. ( non normative, descriptive ethics). Propertarianism may be nothing more than the deterministic result of the need for developing a system of speech for articulating highly correspondent phenomenon i causal rather than normative, experiential and allegorical terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:31:00 UTC

  • CLASS SPECTRUM: *IMPULSIVITY, FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE, AND LOW TIME PREFERENCE* Pr

    CLASS SPECTRUM: *IMPULSIVITY, FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE, AND LOW TIME PREFERENCE*

    Preference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s not causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference, represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsivity scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking.

    Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms. It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man. And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC

  • ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (in progress) I am developing, by accident, a theory of

    ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    (in progress)

    I am developing, by accident, a theory of the cause and content of consciousness. (And I don’t like it.)

    I have emphasized the treatment of calculation and incentives in human behavior;

    And my proposition is that all behavior is intuitionistic;

    And that our intuitionistic calculation is merely an attempt to accumulate property-en-toto.

    And that reason assists us largely in negotiation – negotiation largely expressed as justification; and that we can negotiate and justify because we can both sympathize with intention, and empathize with experiential reaction, or anticipated changes in state, then …. (More here )

    And that as a consequence of negotiating we evolved planning, and the entire Propertarian system that I have attempted to capture in both philosophical and scientific terms.

    In no small part because my intuition, given my genetic interests, is to defeat the use of deception in negotiation, leaving room only for truth telling.

    (More here)

    Because at the top of the spectrum I see that regression toward the mean is inescapable without eugenic suppression.

    Perhaps we explore to leave bad genes behind us, and there are no more continents to conquer.

    As such we cannot leave bad genes behind and must return to the suppression of their expansion in one end, or their destruction on the other.

    In the market, we can cooperate and eugenic ally suppress the inferior genes. Under redistribution we replicate inferior genes (families, classes and tribes).

    The female has a harder time selecting than the male who must merely choose allies. Worse, her impulses are to select for maladaptive behavior:,impulsivity and aggressiveness. This is a pre-sentient form of reproduction. Of the major impulses that affect human cooperation aggression and intelligence, and verbal intelligence in particular are advantageous, while impulsivity is not. Impulsivity reduces preference for consideration: what we call time preference.

    If left unchecked rapid rates of breeding among aggressive and impulsive people’s will defeat lower rates of reproduction among less impulsive, less aggressive people’s. And intelligence and small numbers against aggression and impulsivity in large numbers can succeed through separatism as the west has demonstrated in keeping the east at bay until the socialist era brought about by the cosmopolitans seeking safe haven, retention of separatism, and to retain their parasitism.

    And so separatism, property, market, paternalism and marriage are the means by which we insure eugenic reproduction rather than the dysgenic reproduction of females.

    So indo European man evolved the most rapid means of suppressing female dysgenic and produced eugenic and by doing so dragged all if human exist and out of ignorance and poverty.

    The Chinese method is more direct: systemic slaughter of malcontents under the ideology of order. Our western solution is still superior because we separate moral order from social and economic order.

    This is why our velocity of innovation is higher than other civilizations.

    All we do is negotiate and justify. Our moral intuitions reflect our genetic strategies. We seek to negotiate on their behalf while perusing their interests.

    Our emotions are merely rewards for successful negotiation on behalf of our genetic interests.

    Nothing more.

    As such the questions we face are calculable – all social propositions if reduced to Propertarian statements are in fact decidable.

    Social science is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 07:26:00 UTC

  • Advertising is basically gambling. In the long run, the house (the media) always

    Advertising is basically gambling. In the long run, the house (the media) always wins. But if you don’t play then you can’t get a big win. And companies gamble because big wins pay off.

    Social is an interesting form of gambling. You’re selling the hope of something, and you only have to return as much of the users’s bets in the form of wins, to keep him spending in the hope that he MIGHT get a big win.

    The more tangible the thing you’re selling the more open to discrimination (testing) it is.

    So, if you can sell gambling, it’s better then, say, selling status-symbols like Ferraris and gucci bags and Loubouton shoes. Where you pay for artificial scarcity. And selling signals is better than selling non-status-luxuries, and selling non-status-luxuries is better than selling necessities, and selling necessities is better than selling things you don’t really want (second rate insurance, or a new religion).

    The western ethic though, is to compete on quality.

    Interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 21:58:00 UTC

  • I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce other

    I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce others into moral behavior.

    He will not coerce others into any behavior without moral authority.

    As such, we merely needed to give western man moral authority to act to coerce the immoral, in order to produce the true, the good, and the beautiful.

    Because unlike scriptural or totalitarian civilizations, our western philosophy is not written down in positive form. It is written only in criticisms of the results of our unwritten behaviors and traditions.

    That is why we had to write it down in aristocratic egalitarianism, Propertarianism and testimonial truth.

    To give moral men moral authority to punish the wicked until they are no longer wicked, or the flee, or they die.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 04:04:00 UTC