Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE —“To be correct, ethical memes need to be uni

    ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE

    —“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.

    Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.

    First:

    “All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “

    Second:

    The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.

    For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.

    Third:

    Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.

    CONCLUSION

    So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 11:21:00 UTC

  • POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS And of course there are other options: Land can be owne

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    And of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    The “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 15:17:00 UTC

  • WEAPONIZING REPRODUCTION You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty

    WEAPONIZING REPRODUCTION

    You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty deeply. But yet again, I”m overturning my own biases.

    While patriarchy made possible by property helped to constrain female reproduction rates, and female reproductive parasitism, one of the northern european innovations was to further improve on the suppression of feminine reproductive parasitism, by delaying childbirth as well. Both patriarchy, the absolute nuclear family and manorialism further suppressed female reproductive parasitism.

    The state by contrast, within just one generation of enfranchisement of women, was used by women to reverse thousands of years of innovations in the institutions of property which controlled female reproduction – particularly in the lower classes.

    The state has not only been the source of predation but under universalism the sponsor of both dysgenia and suicide. The most paternal cultures are the most successful. The most aggressive males produce the most aggressive paternalism. The most aggressive paternalism produces the most aggressive family structure.

    We weaponized norms and technology, while other groups of people weaponized reproduction, and yet others weaponized deception.

    Why then should we abandon truth and violence so that we can be conquered by reproduction and deception?

    (This was a conclusion I certainly didn’t expect to come to. Especially as a maker of alpha widows. The family is more important than my own demonstrated preferences illustrate.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 14:28:00 UTC

  • ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE Humans justify. Justification i

    http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cultural-differences-between-Canadians-and-Americans/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers.

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples. Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force.

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest. Little conflict over territory. No conflict over sovereignty.

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict. Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable. The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well. Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference. People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess. They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy, France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china, conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason. They can afford to. They are able to. Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-15 03:38:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Cultural Differences Between Canadians And Americans?

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.  

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers. 

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples.  Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from  Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force. 

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest.  Little conflict over territory.  No conflict over sovereignty. 

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict.  Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable.  The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those  class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well.  Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference.  People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess.  They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy,  France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china,  conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason.  They can afford to. They are able to.  Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cultural-differences-between-Canadians-and-Americans

  • What Are Some Cultural Differences Between Canadians And Americans?

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.  

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers. 

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples.  Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from  Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force. 

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest.  Little conflict over territory.  No conflict over sovereignty. 

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict.  Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable.  The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those  class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well.  Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference.  People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess.  They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy,  France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china,  conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason.  They can afford to. They are able to.  Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cultural-differences-between-Canadians-and-Americans

  • Why Do We Keep Hearing That Production In America Is Now A Pipe Dream Since It Is So Much Cheaper To Produce Abroad? Wasn’t This The Case Throughout Much Of America’s History?

    Americans still produce. Since 1972 the cost per unit has been steadily increasing. And america still produces complex goods. And inly complex goods that require increasingly skilled labor. However, from the civil war onward, America produced cheap goods because of cheap land and labor – so much so that it caused the european depression if the 1870s as prices and labor collapsed in europe. So the rest of the world, by converting from communism to capitalism, has done to ameruca what ameruca did to europe. 

    As such, we cannot produce jobs for american laborers. And so our labor pool is increasing while our economic ability to create jobs for labor is decreasing. 

    The solution is autarkic. But that has ewually dangerous insequences.

    We won the battle with world communism.  We may or may not win the battle with world Islamism. Which is the same battle in different words.

    But in foung so we gave up our privileged position in the world economy.

    Had we retained our homogeneity our high trust woukd have been our advantage.  But that is dissipating as well. 

    The future doesnt look politucally positive even if it looks technologically positive.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-keep-hearing-that-production-in-America-is-now-a-pipe-dream-since-it-is-so-much-cheaper-to-produce-abroad-Wasnt-this-the-case-throughout-much-of-Americas-history

  • What Are Ethics For An It Professional?

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ETHICS

    This is an interesting question in the sense that it’s a clear application of the problem of asymmetry of information, understanding, and power, in the control of a utility (a commons).

    In any niche where one has power and influence over others, because of an asymmetry of knowledge of a common resource that the others cannot  understand without extraordinary personal investment, and where he possesses power over others’ use of a common resource, we encounter the challenges of:

    (a) Free-riding: pretending to work in exchange for payment, while not providing market-value in return, because one is not subject to competition which would discover and cure one’s free-riding.

    (b) Corruption : seeking favors or privileges by granting favors or privileges.

    (c) Privatization : obtaining personal benefit from a common resource that could be consumed by others.

    (d) Punishment : deliberately punishing individuals and groups by virtue of one’s control over the provision of the common resource.

    (e) Harm : Deliberately causing the failure of individuals or groups by virtue of one’s control over the function of the common resource.

    (f) Functioning As An Agent: allowing one’s self to be used to free ride, engage in corruption, privatization punishment or harm.

    Take no personal benefit, give no favors, do no harm, preserve ethical independence from agency,  and make decisions at all times by the business value of the work to be performed.

    Ethical Challenges

    Political hierarchies exist by in all bureaucracies, whether private or public, which operate independently from market competition, which constantly discovers inefficiencies (corruption).

    While one an usually adhere to (a) thru (e) in one’s job, it is very hard in a bureaucracy not to be pressured into (f) (Agency) in a bureaucracy. In fact, the trading of such favors (corruption) is the currency that forms the economy of bureaucracies that are insulated from the market.

    Historical Influences
    In the 20th century, ethical pragmatism (outcome-based ethics)  has replaced ethical absolutism (rule-based ethics) due to the constant pressure of left intellectuals’ attack on western high-trust ethics.  This has allowed the ethical pragmatism of lower trust polities to spread in western culture.  As such it is difficult to operate ethically in private life, commercial life and public life, because such unethical action is beneficial to the individual while harmful to society. 

    This is why westerners are the only people to develop high trust societies. It’s very hard.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-ethics-for-an-IT-professional

  • Is Multiculturalism Good For Independent Thinkers Who Don’t See Themselves As Part Of Any Group In A Multiculural City/society?

    SHORT TERM LUXURY FOR LONG TERM EXPENSE

    Multiculturalism is permissible as a short term luxury that increases consumption by servicing a multitude of consumers, without requiring that consumers pay the cost of adapting to the norms of the host culture.  For this reason, both the sellers and the consumers obtain what they want at a discount. Unfortunately the discount is short term, as multiculturalism decreases trust, and increases political friction,  both of which increase transaction costs.  This is why, over the long term, multiculturalism occurs at the expense of the high trust society’s norms that made the wealth possible, that made the temporary luxury of multiculturalism possible.

    So no, multiculturalism is a a form of overconsumption. We may like it but it’s not ‘good’ by any measure. It is in fact, one of the surest ways to lead to conflict and civil war.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-multiculturalism-good-for-independent-thinkers-who-dont-see-themselves-as-part-of-any-group-in-a-multiculural-city-society

  • Why Haven’t Western Countries Signed The International Convention On The Protection Of The Rights Of All Migrant Workers & Members Of Their Families?

    All human rights are reducible to property rights, because all rights that can be brought into existence are reducible to property rights.  The International charter of human rights consists, in all but the last three line items, of statements of private property rights.  The last three, are not rights but ‘ambitions’ and were reluctantly admitted to the charter at the time under pressure of the then-communist governments.  These last three are not human rights but political obligations that developed countries use to hold undeveloped political authorities accountable for their acitons.

    This accountability is part of the post-war consensus, enforced by the United States as a world policeman,  that granted all states rights to respect for their borders if they obeyed human rights.  (Which Russia recently violated, destroying the postwar consensus.)

    The proposed charter is a license for the theft of property from high trust western polities by peoples of low trust cultures who are themselves unable to create high trust polities.  As such it cannot be considered a ‘right’ but instead a luxury good, or perhaps a license for limited theft.

    The rapid abandonment of socialism and communism and the worldwide adoption of capitalism have eliminated the privileged status of Western peoples because of the artificial shortage of labor.  Now that this shortage has been eliminated, western cultures no longer have labor advantages, and only have institutional advantages. As such increasing the immigration, power, or privileges of expensive underclasses is no longer affordable.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-western-countries-signed-the-International-Convention-on-the-Protection-of-the-Rights-of-All-Migrant-Workers-Members-of-Their-Families