Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • Why Do Nepalese Maoists Want Ethnicity-based Federalism In Nepal’s New Constitution? Will Ethnicity-based Politics Do Any Good To Nepal In The Long Run?

    ETHNO-NATIONALISM
    Ethnically homogenous polities, and particularly SMALL ethnically homogenous polities demonstrate higher tolerance for high taxation and high redistribution because of our biological preference for kin selection.

    People often advocate the scandinavian model, but these are very small countries where all individuals are near-relations, where cousin-marriage is prohibited, and where the absolute nuclear family is practiced along with individual property rights meaning children are responsible for themselves and their economic survival, and do not stay home with parents.  They are also well educated, genetically lower in impulsivity, enjoy hard work, and speak in germanic languages in which duty and hierarchy are metaphysical givens.  As such these countries have very high cultural resistance to corruption.

    Given the great transformation that Nepalese must go through this coming century, a more homogenous culture means less competition for political power that is useful for seeking and distributing rents, and less opportunity and incentive for organized political corruption. 

    However, given traditional nepalese family structures, and nepalese poverty levels, it is unlikely (much like india) that corruption will be eliminated from government and it may even be expanded. 

    Conversely, it is less likely that the degree of corruption that the nepalese will engage in will cause political infighting or a resistance to taxation and redistribution (if only into investment in the commons: infrastructure), if the polity is homogenous. 

    THE DECLINING ADVANTAGE OF SCALE

    Scale is no longer as valuable to an economy as is a reliable currency. 

    It appears that the universalists program advocated by the enlightenment is unsuccessful and that nationalism (tribalism at scale), will return to its historical status as the dominant political ideology.

    This is in part because the value of scale in obtaining credit necessary to finance war has been nearly eliminated by the (strange) influence of nuclear weapons.  If a country can afford nuclear weapons it does not need to engage in large scale defense projects, because its boundaries are secure.  Conversely (as Mr Putin has demonstrated) a country without nuclear weapons cannot claim sovereignty.

    So just as credit, conscription, and ‘total war’ defined the past five hundred years, it appears that nuclear weapons, and small scale nationalism which better serves the interests of citizens, will replace empires and military-credit-industrialism.

    Hence, oddly enough, nuclear weapons end up having produced intuitive political orders.

    Strange but true.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Nepalese-Maoists-want-ethnicity-based-federalism-in-Nepals-new-constitution-Will-ethnicity-based-politics-do-any-good-to-Nepal-in-the-long-run

  • What Is The Appropriate Role And Amount Of Government Regulation Of Businesses?

    (The word ‘appropriate’ is a form of linguistic dishonesty that attempts to create a moral statement where none exists.) 

    Instead, the question is whether a MONOPOLY (in this case, the government), that is insulated from prosecution under the law (bureaucrats), and insulated from market pressures (competition), is superior to a POLYPOLY, in which all members are subject to prosecution under the law (citizens) and subject to market pressures (competition).

    The general theory is that monopolies are necessary to START regulation (government), but that once instituted that competing institutions subject to rule of law are superior to democratic and political influences (politicians, corruption, oligarchies), because each individual everywhere in society, if he holds legal standing under universal standing, is capable of policing the regulators. 

    The problem we have in government is that we cannot police the regulators ,and the implication that voting  is a proxy for lawsuits is empirically false.

    As such, removal of corporate protections and extension of liability to all employees of all organizations, and the granting of universal standing, and the requirement that anyone we would consider needing regulation be insured, allows us to construct competing insurance companies that replace corrupt monopoly bureaucracies in government as means of regulation.

    SO it is not the degree of regulation that is the question, but whether regulation should be performed by monopolies or polypolies.  And the answer is that most regulations must be legally imposed by the monopoly we call government, by requiring private insurance, and that the entire population is both responsible for and capable of policing those companies AND their insurers. 

    It should be fairly obvious that POLOPOLY under NOMOCRACY is a superior means of regulation because it eliminates the possibility of corruption endemic to monopolies.  And equally obvious that the market will seek the level of regulation necessary for insurers and producers to defend themselves from activist citizens intent on controlling them by limiting them moral actions.

    It is less obvious that it is government sanction of corruption and government delivery of regulation that is the cause of illicit business activity, precisely because during the early industrial revolution, governments who were envious of collecting new tax revenues granted protections to private businesses and removed the public’s common law ability to regulate such businesses.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appropriate-role-and-amount-of-government-regulation-of-businesses

  • How Much More Capitalist Is The Us Than Germany?

    • Capitalism: the voluntary organization of consumer production.  (Liberty)
    • Socialism: the involuntary organization of consumer production. (Totalitarianism)
    • Mixed Economy: the voluntary organization of consumer production, and the involuntary redistribution of the rewards earned by organizing consumer production. (A trade-off between liberty and totalitarianism).

    Socialism is impossible, since neither the incentives to produce, nor the means of economic calculation are possible.  The only possible means of organizing production that produces surpluses is to provide both individual incentives and the means of rational calculation for pursuing those incentives.

    This means that the only possible means of organizing production that is adaptive to changes in the world (wants and scarcities) is capitalism.  This is why the entire world has adopted capitalism (the voluntary organization of consumer production). 

    However, the entire world has also adopted mixed economy consumer capitalism: that is, the authoritarian regulation and taking of the rewards from the voluntary organization of production, for the purpose of redistribution (By licit or illicit means, for licit or illicit purposes.)

    So the entire world practices capitalism and none of the world practices socialism. Instead, the whole world practices mixed economy capitalism by taking the maximum amount that they can extract from the organizers of production without disrupting the organization of production. 

    Now, the difference between the USA and Germany is such:
    1) germans are less diverse (more homogeneous) and homogeneous societies (see scandinavia) are comfortable with redistribution (sacrifice of my family and children and subsequent generations) for the service of yours. However, diverse polities are not comfortable with sacrificing for their competitors, any more than germans are happy redistributing to Turks, or mediterranean cultures that are lazier and more corrupt.  America by contrast has an old historical problem of diversity of many peoples, and self reliance.   The more diverse a people the less tolerance for redistribution.

    2) America is not comparable to Germany per se, but to Europe in total. There are 50 American states, and no less than 9 or 10 american regional cultures, and just as brussels is  perceived as a dictatorship the american government is perceived as a dictatorship by the central and southern peoples of the american continent, that works for the advantage of the high population centers of immigrants on the coastal areas.

    As such Germany is both more homogenous, smaller, and more likely to redistribute, (over the objections of the south), while America is larger, more diverse, and less willing to redistribute.  The reason is that germans are not competitors for power with one another (mostly) but american regions are at war with one another using the government as a proxy.

    For these reasons Germany is less an advocate of a mixed economy than say California or New York, but more so than say Iowa, Georgia and Alaska.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-capitalist-is-the-US-than-Germany

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS The attribution of value to an objec

    CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    The attribution of value to an object, rather than it’s cost of acquisition, is to confuse it’s cost to the producer with its value in exchange. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to attribute cost to the user, to market value, it is an error to attribute market value, to cost to the user. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to confuse that which the individual will act to defend, as the transformational product of his efforts, with the conflicts that a polity will choose to defend. This is an irrefutable statement.

    I other words, the Rothbardian cosmopolitan lie is an attempt to use overloading (which clearly is a successful means of lying) to force the strong, high trust, landed, with built capital, to permit parasitism by production-less exchange, frauds of various asymmetries, lies, deceptions conspiracies, privatizations of commons, socializations of losses, and a host of immoralities.

    The purpose of Rothbardian ethics is to justify parasitism. It is in fact,t he most organized, systematic, advocacy of immorality ever constructed by man.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:26:00 UTC

  • MY OBSESSION WITH ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTY IS JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LIN

    MY OBSESSION WITH ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTY IS JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LINE OF GENE EXPRESSIONS

    Liberty is a genetic bias, and in my family it’s not a subtle one.

    *edited for clarity*

    –“The name occurs nowhere else in the world save among a family of Norman knights. But the roots of the Doolittle’s from the Kidderminster area are lost in

    the fog of time.

    In 19th century England the census shows clumps in Ireland, Kidderminster and Birmingham, Lancashire and Yorkshire, and London. There was some evidence that the northern group came there from Ireland. The London family is the Dollittle line and traces to Kidderminster – through the census and B/M/D documents. The Y DNA ties the Irish group, the American group (all descended from Abraham of Wallingford) and Maurice’s line together. There was some evidence that they may have all come from Kidderminster, and apparently they all did.

    So many of that family died, that there aren’t many branches. But, artsy folk and restaurant waiters in Victorian London – it would almost be a surprise if they were really all sons of their mothers’ husbands.(Eds: Markers say no, believe it or not.)

    I did learn by a half dozen different methods that most similar haplotypes are found in the Netherlands and central Europe, including Italy, which suggests that this

    DNA could have followed only around 50 migratory paths to southwestern

    England. Their town is where the Stour and Severn Rivers joined.

    The entire family group are the sort of ferociously emotional people that

    one would really like to have its story better pinned down than that. They appear in medieval Kidderminster as “husbandmen” on a baronial farm, and as weavers and then clothiers in a town that in late medieval times specialized in textile manufacture.

    Multiple lines of them became particularly over the edge Puritans, and they were intimately involved in the Puritan revival there in about the mid 17th century. Abraham was in Connecticut by 1641, and why is quite a mystery, even given that Rev. Davenport could have selectively appealed to this particular man right

    across the ESP waves from hundreds of miles away.

    I’m not aware of Puritans from the Kidderminster and Birmingham areas participating in the New England migration, despite the appearance in Massachusetts of a town called Worcester. Birmingham may have been a Puritan stronghold, but people there preferred to stay put, organize locally, and fight it out, and soon after Abraham left they actually took over Kidderminster, and it seems that those who left were more likely to go to Ireland.”–

    Troublemakers. In Normandy, In Surrey, In the English Revolution, in the Puritans. In the American Revolution.

    Liberty is a genetic bias, and in my family it’s not a subtle one.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 02:14:00 UTC

  • EDUCATION: CUNNING VS MORAL The Perverse Incentives of the Academy. –“education

    EDUCATION: CUNNING VS MORAL

    The Perverse Incentives of the Academy.

    –“education makes one cunning, not wise, and not moral”–

    I was kind of ‘moved’ by Michael Philip’s post today on the motives of members of the academy. It’s been bothering me all day because not only is it true, but I think it qualifies as a bias, and a formal bias at that. Or rather, I think status-biases are probably a category of cognitive bias that I (we) should investigate, document, expand upon, and communicate with some frequency. Because most of the progressive status signals are constructed of cognitive biases (falsehoods).

    Cunning favors complexity. Dishonesty favors complexity. Speaking truthfully is in fact laborious – it requires a lot of effort. Speaking the truth however, is a very simple strategy, that requires very little cunning – maybe none at all. Because prohibiting the imposition of costs is a very simple rule. Voluntary exchange is a very simple rule. The rule of law under Propertarian Property Rights (Property-in-toto), is a very simple rule. That demand for the state will increase if their is a lag in the development of property rights, is a very simple rule. These are all very simple rules.

    If all moral propositions are decidable, (under propertarian logic, they are), then there is no room for cunning, except to lie. I fact, cunning is a contrary indicator of truth, and of morality.

    Yet cunning is such an attractive means of dominance display. For those of us trying to eliminate cunning, we can temporarily display dominance, but only in the art of refuting loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. And since I have no illusions that the incentives to construct complex lies via cunning verbalisms will ever disappear, then I suspect that the defense against cunning will always require wisdom and cunning.

    So I have a new to-do, which is to enumerate the cognitive biases we fall victim to in the pursuit of status signals.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 19:25:00 UTC

  • THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN’T EXIST The point is that women

    THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN’T EXIST

    The point is that women are just as capable as men and the data is overwhelming. However the statistical disparities are not the result of bias but of the distribution of talents and preferences between the genders.

    So my point was that no one is biased against female CEOs. And no one is biased against short CEOs. There are just a lot of tall capable men and humans like big strong smart men as their leaders.

    I can post all day that men and women are equally productive in the work force. Or that women assimilate into organizations more easily than men. Or that they mature earlier and have longer possible working lives than men. Or that women dominate the middle. And that women improve working conditions.

    But the moment I bring up that up here in the high iq range women don’t want to engage in constant combat, prefer to work relationships rather than abstract data, or that men up here outnumber women by an order of magnitude, or that women are less likely to take career risk in loyalty structures, the crazies come out of the woodwork.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 10:00:00 UTC

  • Do you know why most professors don’t participate in the blogosphere, even if th

    Do you know why most professors don’t participate in the blogosphere, even if they publish ideas in the blogosphere?

    ‘Cause unless you’re engaging in advocacy, particularly political advocacy, and particularly dishonest advocacy (krugman, delong, thoma) it is not worth your time.

    Worse, once you realize that (a) almost all online participants are engaging in a search for confirmation bias, and (b) that almost all humans are incapable of more than sentimental expression, or moral argument, and are permanently prohibited from ratio-scientific reasoning by hard limits to their abilities, and (c) that the deeper the knowledge you possess on any given subject, the more you contradict intuitive arguments -even within your discipline – meaning that

    So you basically can participate online as publisher, or a teacher, or as an advocate; but it’s pretty hard to participate as a persuader – debater. Because almost no one is capable of conducting a debate – either because of limited ability or limited knowledge or both.

    The value of the internet to average people, is not so much one of learning the new, but in their own error reduction within their own cognitive biases. And the rate at which we can reduce errors within our own cognitive biases.

    This does not help us to develop agreement on any form of moral universalims. What it does, however, eventually, is give us an opportunity for proposing compromises across cognitive and moral biases – our reproductive strategies – so that it is easier to obtain consensus across a smaller set of errors within the same distribution of biases.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-17 05:56:00 UTC