Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE RATIONALITY OF THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION ON EDUCATION The conservative argum

    THE RATIONALITY OF THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION ON EDUCATION

    The conservative argument is a) that our children spend more time being indoctrinated into socialism than they are educated. (true after 5th grade) b) that the teachers union blocks reforms to the process, putting teachers above students. (demonstrably true in all cases) c) that we spend more than anyone else and get poorer academic results (the data shows this to be true) d) that we have lost competitiveness in the working and lower classes because of all of these factors, and this has endangered the privileged position of the american economy. (demonstrably true) e) that it is not possible for people with traditional values to avoid oppression of their values by the socialist state. (certainly true)

    ALL of these are legitimate concerns supported by the data. They are not wrong to hold these values. It might be argued that the political necessity of overcoming the difficulty of mixing races, cultures and values is so costly and difficult that we must bear these costs at the expense of our economic privilege. But that is a preference, not a truth.

    The conservatives hold a different preference: the competitiveness of the tribe. They have a broader moral code (see Haidt) that takes into consideration more variables. They value normative capital more highly. And they hold these values at the expense of the individual, and tolerate the consequences of proportionality (meritocracy) in favor of its benefits. They are not irrational, emotional, or cruel. They simply have additional considerations beyond simple maternal caretaking.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-06 02:19:00 UTC

  • MORAL SPATIAL REASONING I might have been wrong about something interesting. For

    MORAL SPATIAL REASONING

    I might have been wrong about something interesting.

    For years I have understood that Europeans have superior spatial reasoning especially in the perception of the locations of others in real time. Europeans are followed by east Asians.

    But I assumed that this was a product of military or hunting selection.

    It didn’t occur to me that it is the product of morality: understanding of the intentions of others, and that hunting and fighting superiority, particularly in Europe and Asia evolved as extensions of the moral instinct.

    So does it mean that our concept of time preference should be restated in moral terms?

    We know that time preference, impulsivity and morality are correlated with social class. And that intelligence is also.

    We know that Europeans and east Asians are the least impulsive people. Asians less impulsive than Europeans.

    We know that only east Asians and europeans were able to create advanced societies and that only Europeans were able to break familial bonds.

    But are these all simply effects of greater sensitivity to and priority given to, the detection of intentions for the purpose of seizing opportunities to cooperate : morality?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-02 02:19:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL TRIBALISM IN THE US VS UKRAINE Even in the UK, where I feel more at ho

    POLITICAL TRIBALISM IN THE US VS UKRAINE

    Even in the UK, where I feel more at home than in the states, I don’t feel about the people the same way I do here. I literally want to hug them at random while walking down the street. THey are beautiful, sweet and wonderful. Partly because metaphysically speaking, they naturally think about government the way that we libertarians do: it’s a corrupt enterprise. And given that it’s a corrupt enterprise we must rely upon personal relationships. Personal relationships then, rather than abstract principles, determine the nature and content of communication between people. The degree to which americans are essentially ‘religious’ about social order is only evident to me in this dramatic contrast, where people have zero faith at all in such abstractions. For all american talk about freedom and liberty, we willfully oppress ourselves from both right and left. And while the political class here is openly predatory and self interested in paternal familialism, the american political class is just as predatory and self interested in ideological tribalism. It’s just the same instinct and process devoid of genetic preference, and obscured by ideological abstraction.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-31 07:38:00 UTC

  • WHY UKRAINIANS DISLIKE RUSSIANS You know, over the past month, I’ve seen about a

    WHY UKRAINIANS DISLIKE RUSSIANS

    You know, over the past month, I’ve seen about a dozen incidents so far of some drunk Russian male douchebag looking for a fight. Last night was typical. The guy tried to leave the restaurant without paying his bill. He had to send a friend to get money for him from an ATM. When he counted out the money on the table, he distracted the waitress and then deftly pocketed some of it again. Then he accused the waitress of stealing from him, when she counted the money and came up short. He claimed injustice and called on his friends. I think three or four of them came as supporters.

    Things are odd here: in the states if anything like this happened, the staff would quickly call the police or bouncers and move the scene out of view. THe police would document the facts that they could collect, force the idiots to leave the premises and let the courts resolve the conflict. But here, I don’t know why, the argument went on for more than an hour in the restaurant, while patient customers ignored it. The security guards were as patient as saints. The managers were overly deliberative. The Bartender would have happily gotten into a brawl. The waitresses formed a female mob around them (women do everything here.)

    So, aside from being invaded by these people, conquered by them, forced to learn their language – they still have to put up with fight-seeking drunken scumbags on a daily basis. And it’s sad. The people here are so sweet, patient and gentle.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-27 06:23:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE VS SCIENTISM AND RELIGION : THE PROBLEM OF DEMOCRACY There is a fundamen

    SCIENCE VS SCIENTISM AND RELIGION : THE PROBLEM OF DEMOCRACY

    There is a fundamental difference between those who possess the capacity for utilizing reason, those who possess the capacity for comprehending reason, and those who possess the capacity for utilizing rules and conventions, and those who lack the capacity for utilizing any of the above.

    To suggest that science and reason are sufficient devices for cooperation and social order in a division of knowledge and labor, is UNSCIENTIFIC because it is contrary to both evidence and reason.

    Science becomes the religion of scientism and no better than mysticism if it supposes universal application and utility.

    The question remains: why must we advocate one unified means of argument and comprehension, across all peoples within a polity? The answer is that under the irrational religion of secular democracy – those institutions which we currently live under – we suppose unanimity of ability in order to justify the use of state power.

    If you can understand this, you will understand that the problem is not one of science versus religion – which in principle can produce the same ends. But between the false premise of universalism and equality mandated the the institution of democracy.

    It is our political system that is the cause of our problems.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-19 02:26:00 UTC

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES “I cook, I cl

    “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer.” – Nikka.

    Chivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands.

    But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church.

    Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends.

    This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive.

    The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character.

    This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society.

    Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now.

    There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember:

    1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west.

    2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence.

    3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history.

    As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west.

    Affections to all.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 13:55:00 UTC

  • Why Should A Person Believe In Austrian Economics?

    It is not a question of ‘belief’. There are five or six different strategic economic biases in favor of a different set of levers for encouraging an economy. These different levers vary from the fastest and most redistributive and distorting to the slowest, least redistributive and distorting.   They are loosely Modern Monetary (fastest), Monetarism, Fiscal Policy, Industrial policy, and Human Capital policy (slowest – austrianism).

    The other criticisms of the ideas of these schools as consisting of ‘true’ or ‘false’ propositions are absurd. All schools are merely utilitarian, and reward one or more sectors of an economy and one or more social classes, asymmetrically. All have side effects that are positive or negative.   Austrianism trades slower growth for greater personal freedom, greater innovation, smaller boom and bust cycles, with greater development of a natural aristocracy, and natural intertemporal increases in the rate of expansion of the economy between the classes.

    The competition between the schools is merely a preference for one set of EXTERNALITIES over another set of externalities.  With austrianism preferring to cause the lowest redistribution of capital, and the greatest reward, and greatest incentive for entrepreneurship, and the least incentive for political actors, and the greatest diversity of wealth (inequality), in exchange for greater relative wealth for all.  It also has the best system of feedback for the expansion of positive norms – which conservatives feel (correctly) are more important for the expansion of an economy than any other property.

    Claims that austiranism is apodeicitcally certain are specious.  Any system so certain must be substantially complete, and praxeology as it is currently constructed is incomplete enough that it cannot render judgements of certainty except in the most reductio (absurd) cases. (I am trying to fix this problem but it will take me another year or so.)   Instead, praxeological analysis simply exposes the the incentives of individuals and illustrates their rational actions,  IN effect allowing us to judge whether our ascertations about human behavior are true or false.   This leads to exceptional insights about human nature in an economy.  However, a) this does not invalidate the other schools only opens the door for discussions of trade offs.  b) we have been wrong on a number of topics that appear to be rational to individual actors but in practice are false (stickiness of prices, and irrationality of actions.)  

    The central tenet of austiranism, is the business cycle theory, which states that any  intervention in an economy will pervert incentives and information and causes worse busts and booms.  This argument appears to be correct. It is just questionably useful in a democracy where voters will demand action from government.

    A wise man would say, that each of these sets of levers and externalities has value to moving an economy.  But that it appears to be impossible in our democratically structured politcal system, to use each lever for the purposes to which it is suited, and for the benefit of all.  Politics in democracy is a means of obtaining power to conduct rents.   And since each of the different schools and their levers allows a different kind of rent to be sought for a different class of citizens, we merely fight over the control of these levers for our sects.

    You will not likely hear this explanation elsewhere. You may not understand this explanation.  Because I cannot take the time, sitting in my hotel room, to write a twenty page essay on the topic.  However, it is most likely the only correct analysis of the different economic schools currently available.

    Cheers.
    Curt
    (Thank you for asking me to answer this question. Although I think only the most sophisticated of students will understand it.)

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-a-person-believe-in-Austrian-economics

  • Why Should A Person Believe In Austrian Economics?

    It is not a question of ‘belief’. There are five or six different strategic economic biases in favor of a different set of levers for encouraging an economy. These different levers vary from the fastest and most redistributive and distorting to the slowest, least redistributive and distorting.   They are loosely Modern Monetary (fastest), Monetarism, Fiscal Policy, Industrial policy, and Human Capital policy (slowest – austrianism).

    The other criticisms of the ideas of these schools as consisting of ‘true’ or ‘false’ propositions are absurd. All schools are merely utilitarian, and reward one or more sectors of an economy and one or more social classes, asymmetrically. All have side effects that are positive or negative.   Austrianism trades slower growth for greater personal freedom, greater innovation, smaller boom and bust cycles, with greater development of a natural aristocracy, and natural intertemporal increases in the rate of expansion of the economy between the classes.

    The competition between the schools is merely a preference for one set of EXTERNALITIES over another set of externalities.  With austrianism preferring to cause the lowest redistribution of capital, and the greatest reward, and greatest incentive for entrepreneurship, and the least incentive for political actors, and the greatest diversity of wealth (inequality), in exchange for greater relative wealth for all.  It also has the best system of feedback for the expansion of positive norms – which conservatives feel (correctly) are more important for the expansion of an economy than any other property.

    Claims that austiranism is apodeicitcally certain are specious.  Any system so certain must be substantially complete, and praxeology as it is currently constructed is incomplete enough that it cannot render judgements of certainty except in the most reductio (absurd) cases. (I am trying to fix this problem but it will take me another year or so.)   Instead, praxeological analysis simply exposes the the incentives of individuals and illustrates their rational actions,  IN effect allowing us to judge whether our ascertations about human behavior are true or false.   This leads to exceptional insights about human nature in an economy.  However, a) this does not invalidate the other schools only opens the door for discussions of trade offs.  b) we have been wrong on a number of topics that appear to be rational to individual actors but in practice are false (stickiness of prices, and irrationality of actions.)  

    The central tenet of austiranism, is the business cycle theory, which states that any  intervention in an economy will pervert incentives and information and causes worse busts and booms.  This argument appears to be correct. It is just questionably useful in a democracy where voters will demand action from government.

    A wise man would say, that each of these sets of levers and externalities has value to moving an economy.  But that it appears to be impossible in our democratically structured politcal system, to use each lever for the purposes to which it is suited, and for the benefit of all.  Politics in democracy is a means of obtaining power to conduct rents.   And since each of the different schools and their levers allows a different kind of rent to be sought for a different class of citizens, we merely fight over the control of these levers for our sects.

    You will not likely hear this explanation elsewhere. You may not understand this explanation.  Because I cannot take the time, sitting in my hotel room, to write a twenty page essay on the topic.  However, it is most likely the only correct analysis of the different economic schools currently available.

    Cheers.
    Curt
    (Thank you for asking me to answer this question. Although I think only the most sophisticated of students will understand it.)

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-a-person-believe-in-Austrian-economics