Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”- (Our agenda is to produce a universally co

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”-
    (Our agenda is to produce a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to the spectrum of human cooperation from ethics to economics to politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs, but prevents the government, public intellectuals, the academy, a priesthood and all those others with political interests from lying about the possibilities, costs, and benefits. So in most reductive form our agenda is a science of law that that mandates “No More Lies” in public policy.)

    RULE OF LAW CONSTITUTIONALISM (REPUBLIC) WITH ADAPTIVE ECONOMICS
    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal – meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic – that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country. And our political activism is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in anglosphere and continental european countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well. But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests.

    In other words. We work to create a constitutional template with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    RESTORING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
    Why? Enlightenment and Marxist ideology – as revolts against the anglo innovation of classical liberal empiricsm – has permeated education with the false promise of equality other than under the law, leading many to fail, while the government, using this false claim of equality, can escape responsibility and accountability for the success of citizens due to this lie. Where instead, a responsible and accountable government and it’s employees and contractors and all those under its regulatory domain, can, should, and must (if legitimate) bear responsibility and accountability for success of individual citizens within the limites of their ability and will. This is the best possible outcome because it works to assist each person in maximizing his or her potential in life – but in the context of everyone else also doing so – producing a distribution and a hierarchy of competency that is in everyone’s interest.

    In fact, our democratic governments when not limited by constitutions of empirical, formal, natural law, are LESS accountable for success of the polity while claiming democratic voting makes them accountable. And its evidently not true.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc. This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth, that a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-04 10:47:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676180935975264257

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”- (a universally commensurable val

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”-
    (a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to human cooperation including economics and politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that prevents lying but allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs.’)

    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal, meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic, that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country in the northern European tradition in the European civilization’s tradition: the USA, UK, CA, AUS, NZ. And our political action is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in those countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This means we produce a science of cooperation through economics and politics. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well.

    But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests. In other words. We have to create a constitution with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc.

    This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth is a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-03 19:31:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675950349310390272

  • A SUMMARY OF THE PAST CENTURY OF HISTORIANS OF CIVILIZATIONAL RISE AND FALL –“Q

    A SUMMARY OF THE PAST CENTURY OF HISTORIANS OF CIVILIZATIONAL RISE AND FALL
    –“Q: Hey Curt, what are your thoughts about Oswald Spengler?”–

    My thoughts on Spengler differ based upon what question you’re asking.

    In General I think of Spengler compared to Arnold Toynbee and Carroll Quigley. Though I tend to think of all historians of rise-and-fall in relation to all others:

    Spengler (Very German,1880) thought civilizational cycles were deterministic.

    Toynbee(British, 1889) thought that they rise and fall based on their success or failure to handle challenges.

    Quigley(American, 1910 ) thought they had tendencies to go through cycles but good government could change the course.

    Huntington(American, 1927) Thought that civilizational differences were nearly impossible to overcome so the future would be decided by the conflicts that arose between the civilizations.

    Tainter (American, 1949) Tainter thinks (like me) in economic terms, and that all organizations, including states and civilizations, ‘calcify’ by exploiting opportunities, investing in all manner of systems and institutions to do so, and maximize rents and free riding – until a shock can’t be adapted to without collapse and reorganization – learning and developing the appropriate systems. In other words, humans behave at all scales, including the economic and political, as neural economies behave.

    Diamond (American Jewish, 1937) Diamond thinks that geography and geographical resources were more deterministic than demographics, culture, and institutions. This is partly correct and partly wrong, and his later work on fall of civilizations just repeats the same as everyone else. Diamond always has an agenda and I find him as exasperating as he is helpful – just like say, Howard Zinn(Marxist) and NY Harari(Mythicist) who are full of pop culture Jewish nonsense in the jewish pseudoscientific tradition of Freud, Boaz, Marx, and Gould, as well as the ever dominant Frankfurt school.

    Fukuyama (Japanese American, 1952) Fukuyama thinks three things are necessary for a strong and capable MODERN state, the state’s subordination to a rule of law, and the state’s accountability to all its citizens. But while these are difficult to produce, maintaining it is even harder. Because all political systems (as in all human organizations) calcify, exhaust resources and opportunities, maximize internal rent seeking, overproduce rent-seeking elites, and decay. So Fukuyama attributes (correctly) rise and fall to political decay from political overpopulation, self interest, rent seeking, and corruption.

    Turchin (Russian American, 1957) Turchin believes, even more analytically, than Fukuyama, and mathematically that the overproduction of elites produce political decay. But he also holds to the cyclical view of history the way that previous russian thinkers (and I include myself in this group) recognize the patterns of economic cycles and the reasons for them in the cycles of history.

    My perception is that these men are increasingly refining the theory of history at civilizational scales in parallel with the increasing refining of the theory of economic history at national and global scales.

    I think the best thing we can learn from all of them is the need for small government, with the maximum use of financial investment by the state and the maximum use of the private sector, combined with the minimum public sector employment. Because it’s our governments and the people who seek rents and privileges and distributions from them that cause us to fail.

    One thing I can’t stress enough is that people like Turchin and myself are not ‘literary essayists’ reading texts, but using economic and legal data, by effectively trying to discover the algorithms for human behavior at scale. Whereas there is a great deal of theology, philosophy, and idealism in earlier generations of thinkers – particularly those pre-war.

    I hope this short set of paragraphs helps.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-03 17:52:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675925458926313485

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675901776195727361

  • MARXIST STORYTELLING (JUSTIFICATION, PILPUL CRITIQUE) VS THE WEST, VS THE IDEAL

    MARXIST STORYTELLING (JUSTIFICATION, PILPUL CRITIQUE) VS THE WEST, VS THE IDEAL ECONOMY
    Storytelling is (Mythologizing) has a long history in semitic pre-abrahamic, and abrahamic religion, and of course, as a consequence in the marxist revision of the semitic religions.

    Yet always and everywhere this Storytelling (Mythologizing) exists to evade the central problem of human behavior: Rule of Law, by the Natural Law, of Self Determination by Self Determined means, Limiting us to Sovereignty in Demonstrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed, (a) produces incentives (b) produces meritocracy (c) produces natural hierarchy, (d) produces empirical decidability (e) which in turn produces courts for the suppression of violations of reciprocity (f) at the expense of continuing natural selection by the suppression of the reproduction of the unfit for the stage of technological development.

    Conversely the problem of socialism is the (a’) production of incentives, (b’) the production of corruption instead of meritocracy, (c’) the production of an unnatural hierarchy (competence in corruption), (d’) produces arbitrary decidability (corruption), (e’) which prohibits the function of courts in suppression of corruption and irreciprocity (d’) and exacerbates dysgenic reproduction. And it’s dysgenic reproduction that is undermining the west at the moment, and is starting to undermine china.

    And lastly, the falsehood (by marx) that ‘society’ is family rather than that society consists of families, clans, sometimes tribes and nations, that require incentive to cooperate, compete, and avoid conflict and war. In other words, society is a product of a market for cooperation. It is only among the incomptent ignorant and weak, that they claim that others hold any obligation to them, other than the one that we can all hold to one another: non-aggression, non violence, non-predation, non-parasitism.

    In particular why do the competent care for being preyed upon by the incompetent? The standard question is: why if will parasitically prey upon me and mine (the competent), would I and mine not parsitically prey upon you (the incompetent)? Why if you parasitically wish to prey upon me and mine (the productive) through government, would I and mine not parasitically prey upon you by enserving or enslaving, and ruling you (the unproductive)? Worse, in an age where labor no longer has any value, and increasingly will have no value, why not separate from you or end you?

    This is the rational question of the strong and the competent. Therefore it is better to find a means of non-parasitism between the classes so that these classes and countries can cooperate interally and externally.

    Reality: We need economies that suit our demographics. The demographic composition of africa is in th 60’s and 70’s meaning only 10% of the pouplation is capable of self regulatory and self learning behavior necessary for a economy other than agrarian. The composition of south eurasia, meaning MENA+India is in the low 80’s, meaning that more than half the population is unemployable in any skilled labor, and the intellectual classes are extremely limited in number. In europe and east asia, our demographics are around 100-105, meaning all but 10-15% of our populations are capable of ecnomic participation in advanced economies. This is because your political and economic condition is dependent upon i) demographic distribution (summarized in IQ), and ii) smart fraction – meaning the percent of the population over 125.

    So, the non-ideological description of these diverse needs, is that some groups can maintain a market economy, some groups require a military economy (soviet), and some groups require a peasant economy (much of the ‘developing’ world).

    And the utopian economy supplies the market, the military, and the peasant economies, so that all classes operate by the means it’s possible for them to operate under.

    Because we have learned, even in europe, that the majority of the population cannot bear the responsibility of northern european high trust polities, where individuals are fully responsible for themselves. Instead, the majority prefer serfdom (socialist) economies because their survival is insured (as were serfs and slaves) and their market competition is limited to the production of sufficient income to pay for entertainment and other luxuries. And for those that are truly dependent, they can retain their in-famiily dependence and shared reciprocal insurance and obtain some redistribution from their betters in exchange for limiting their reproduction.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-03 14:35:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675875865836638211

  • We can look back at history and see most progressive movements that attempted to

    We can look back at history and see most progressive movements that attempted to evade behavior demonstrated by human nature – especially our rather slow rate of adaptation to habituated concepts, norms, and institutions – have ended in harms.

    The optimum political order is the small homogenous ethnostate with rule of law by the natural law, an independent judiciary, a monarchy as head of state and judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals to govern, and houses as a market for trades between the classes for the production of commons, with the intergenerational family (not the individual) as the central object of policy. Christianity even if secular is a massive benefit because itis the only religion adapted to natural law.

    Reply addressees: @CrispinFitheler @FarajRashi93307

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-01 18:12:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675205723419033602

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675203998658461697

  • SEX DIFFERENCES IN WORLD MODELING –“True education is living with real people a

    SEX DIFFERENCES IN WORLD MODELING
    –“True education is living with real people and understanding life’s struggles and the humanity we all share.”– Sue Ellen

    Technically speaking, that’s not education (a generalization of empirical evidence) that’s called ‘idiosyncratic experience’, which means ‘unscientific’. And it’s unscientific, yet ‘believed’ partly because you, like all of us, select for interactions with people already aligned, but as a woman you empathize, suffer pervasive “false consensus bias”, and fail to systematize. Women’s minds (mostly) live in a world of empathy and justification to avoid conflict and responsibility for its settlement, and men live in a world of systemization and falsification so we take responsibility to handle and resolve conflict.

    Anyone who has run businesses or invested around the world, worked in the state department, intel, or the military, can readily explain that one-on-one, chattering around the world, we find ourselves similar. But conversely, discussing any set of ideas, how to solve challenges, or listening to the complexity – and especially the lack of it – in native conversations around the world, rapidly demonstrates how alien we are from one another. And that alienation increases as class decreases.

    In other words, you are the victim of naive bias.

    And in general, this is why men don’t take women seriously outside of their sphere of interpersonal competency. And for what it’s worth, the expression of these female traits in the voting pattern is the source of today’s vast conflict that’s leading to secession and civil war.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @LucidPams @TheAutistocrat

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-01 15:07:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675159114790449153

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675128368012959744

  • “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation” The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is

    “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation”

    The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is a series of attention-seeking, misinterpretations, fictions, and pseudoscience based on ignorance.

    The universe *IS* quite accidentally (or deterministically) computing something (persistence), but it’s not a simulation. And the fundamental laws of the universe exist and persist because they evolved the only means of their survival – just like every other property of the universe that evolved from those fundamental laws.

    We are, each of us living in an experience that consists of perception (existence) competing with an overlay of auto association we call prediction (imagination) and then shifting our attention as we do focusing between something near and something far.

    We maintain different focuses, so some live more in the world of existence (present), some of us in imagination(thinking), some of us closer to dream state (disconnected).

    So it’s understandable that some ‘pseudoscientists and philosophers and nonsense-speakers’ would try to preserve mysticism and woo woo by claiming we live in a simulation.

    We dont. We see as much of the world as we can act upon. Because that’s all it’s useful for us to see, hear, feel, smell, and disambiguate into a model we can act in. But just as the camera sees the world as it is, so do we. We break the world into bits (disambiguate it) by means that allow us to move through and act on it. Just like any and all sentient life in this world or any other.

    The only ‘miracles’ are:
    … a) we percive a three dimensional world at a scale we can move through. This hippocampal magic is the most fascinating part of the brain. The rest is simple by comparison.
    … b) We have developed enough brain matter in enough of a hierarchy to recursively think about thinking (consciousness).

    The rest is just tediously boring physics really.

    The age of philosophy, mysticism, and woo woo is over.

    It’s just going to take a generation for the nonsense-speakers to die off and the current state of understanding to reproduce in the population.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @Jut2685 @PolitiStoned @VivekGRamaswamy

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 21:20:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674890767708348416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674876320684158979

  • You can only change the rules people let you. 😉 They are ending the ‘letting yo

    You can only change the rules people let you. 😉
    They are ending the ‘letting you’ phase.
    As the court is demonstrating.
    Why?
    It has resulted in what we call ‘unsettled law’.
    The court’s job is to produce settled law.
    That means naturality, concurrency, and commonality

    If you…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 20:07:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674872275886014464

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674867840338518017

  • In therapy, there is a difference between emotional problems and problems with e

    In therapy, there is a difference between emotional problems and problems with emotions. 😉 The difference is emotional problems have a biological, medical, or habituated cause, and problems with emotions are a normal human challenge where we all need help when there is a conflict between our emotions that are causing us confusion or difficulty with solving problems. ;).

    Now you need a psychiatrist for biological and medical problems a psychologist for habituated problems, a therapist for emotional problems, and an advisor, mentor, or coach, for solving problems in conflict with emotions. Each of these things is really just achieving some form of understanding.

    One of my ‘side projects’ is trying to solve the problem of psychological support for men – when the industry beginning with freud is decidedly feminine, and trying to teach you how to cope and not bear responsibility. Versus the masculine teaching you how to bear responsibility by understanding and adapting to those emotions.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 18:42:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673763642594959372

  • Why It’s Pointless To Debate Leftists –“I feel like it’s not worth it to debate

    Why It’s Pointless To Debate Leftists

    –“I feel like it’s not worth it to debate leftists given you should really have a conversation about their underlying philosophic tenets and the incentive structures they have, but a leftist would refuse to do that, since they would view it as irrelevant.”–RL

    Correct. Because it would force them into mindfulness, that would force them in to introspection, that would force them to adapt, which would force them to self-regulate, instead of just ‘feel and react’ – and as such they will resist that entire sequence to their last breath. 😉

    (Same advice I give men. Don’t argue with women. Seek to understand. Then say only you can or will, can’t or won’t do or participate in that. The problem is we can choose not to cooperate with women but the government by majority rule allows them to force us to do what they wish even though we don’t want to cooperate with them. Hence Secession and Separation is the only possibility.)

    There is a reason the Abrahamists invented mythicism and theology, why the Germans converted it to dialectic, and the Marxists applied dialectic, and why the postmodernists reinvented institutionalized lying (sophistry), because reason evidence reciprocity are obstacles to power to obtain corruption, rents, and free riding, without demonstrated competency in market productivity.

    No more lies, thanks. 😉
    Childhood ended with the right to participate in government.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 18:20:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673758237101793296