Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ON WAR AS ORGANIZED MURDER (A post from elsewhere) It may be true that war is or

    ON WAR AS ORGANIZED MURDER

    (A post from elsewhere)

    It may be true that war is organized murder, But that moral statement must be balanced by the practical recognition that those who are unwilling to engage in war, unprepared for it, and unskilled in it, will rapidly become the subjects of those who are willing, prepared, and skilled at conducting it.

    Certainly the neocon mission has been a failure in muslim lands, for the sole reason that exacting punishment for not controlling one’s citizens is different from the absurd attempt at social conversion of paternalistic tribalism to something like democracy and consumer capitalism.

    Certainly the intervention in Serbia was a mistake. Wars can be waged by urgent violence, tactical trade policy, ideological conversion, and sustained immigration. To limit the appropriation of a people’s life and property to that of violence is a bit of arbitrary and dishonest rhetorical trickery. Conquest by immigration is just as viable as conquest by force. The only difference is the time frame.

    Certainly the US intervention into WW! was a mistake, as was our intervention in the european theater in ww2. The cultural core of Europe was Germany and we broke her will. And along with that will, the long term viability of the high-trust society that is unique to protestant germanic lands and the secret of Germanic resistance to corruption. The rest of Europe is just a cultural province by comparison. And teh german criticism of petty consumerism of anglo society has proven as true as they predicted. It will be two or three generations before she regains her will to act as the core cultural state of western civilization. (Others think it will not recover but I’m less skeptical)

    But I don’t think our interventions that stopped the spread of communism were mistakes. I don’t think McArthur’s desire to topple communist china was a mistake. It would have saved millions of lives, and prevented the upcoming confrontation we will all be faced with.

    And most of all, I don’t respect european pacifism paid for with american blood and treasure. Nor social programs that are subsidized by Americans who pay for European defense, and most importantly, subsidy of stable energy prices. Nor do I respect American pacifism that is mere financial and personal convenience masquerading as conviction.

    There is a vast difference between war, nation building, police action, and empire building. Only war is necessary. Nation building, police action and empire building are just thefts by way of murder.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-23 14:08:00 UTC

  • Startup Skills Vs Startup Ideas?

    I’ve started eight companies, invested in about an equal number, and pitched more times than I can remember or count.

    The idea only matters if other investors are following it.  Investors are sheep. They follow trends in business ideas because trends mean over-investment that they can participate in.  Instead of ideas, they care about the returns on the idea. And most entrepreneurs spend too much time on their idea and not enough on  how they will market, sell, distribute and create their product and service, and who they can exit to if they succeed.

    Ideas are cheap, and plentiful. They are everywhere. The problem is not coming up with an idea. it’s coming up with an idea that customers will pay for and which provides an exit strategy.

    After you have that idea, the next problem is execution. Can your team demonstrate an ability to execute by getting customers, and producing results. The most common problem I come across is confusing learning with producing results.  No one will pay for learning. That’s just a cost. They pay for products and services. For “deliverables.” Customers and investors included.

    And then there is  the problem of cost.  Can you execute and create enough profit that an investor can see a way out, by tripling their money in three years?Or do you not expect to need an investor?

    I’ve probably answered this question a thousand times in my career, but people keep asking it in the futile hope that someone will provide them with an alternative answer.  But that won’t happen. 

    And, using facebook is an interesting analogy.  They started by making a dating tool for exclusive universities, and ended with one of the worse IPO scams in recent history.It’s an outlier.  Outliers don’t teach us anything. It’s the thousand companies that follow a fairly standard path that we learn from.

    https://www.quora.com/Startup-skills-vs-startup-ideas

  • Startup Skills Vs Startup Ideas?

    I’ve started eight companies, invested in about an equal number, and pitched more times than I can remember or count.

    The idea only matters if other investors are following it.  Investors are sheep. They follow trends in business ideas because trends mean over-investment that they can participate in.  Instead of ideas, they care about the returns on the idea. And most entrepreneurs spend too much time on their idea and not enough on  how they will market, sell, distribute and create their product and service, and who they can exit to if they succeed.

    Ideas are cheap, and plentiful. They are everywhere. The problem is not coming up with an idea. it’s coming up with an idea that customers will pay for and which provides an exit strategy.

    After you have that idea, the next problem is execution. Can your team demonstrate an ability to execute by getting customers, and producing results. The most common problem I come across is confusing learning with producing results.  No one will pay for learning. That’s just a cost. They pay for products and services. For “deliverables.” Customers and investors included.

    And then there is  the problem of cost.  Can you execute and create enough profit that an investor can see a way out, by tripling their money in three years?Or do you not expect to need an investor?

    I’ve probably answered this question a thousand times in my career, but people keep asking it in the futile hope that someone will provide them with an alternative answer.  But that won’t happen. 

    And, using facebook is an interesting analogy.  They started by making a dating tool for exclusive universities, and ended with one of the worse IPO scams in recent history.It’s an outlier.  Outliers don’t teach us anything. It’s the thousand companies that follow a fairly standard path that we learn from.

    https://www.quora.com/Startup-skills-vs-startup-ideas

  • HOW A NERD THINKS ABOUT A WARDROBE I’ve lost something like 40 lbs, although I f

    HOW A NERD THINKS ABOUT A WARDROBE

    I’ve lost something like 40 lbs, although I feel like I’ve gained a bit back staying here in Bellevue, typing all day. So I’ve had to slowly rebuild my wardrobe over the summer so that I’m not swimming in sacks like Alice after she imbibes the Drink Me potion.

    I didn’t change the style at all. Still stayed with the jeans/jacket theme that I’ve always had, and the pretty stock Ralph Lauren for casual.

    — WARDROBE UPGRADES —

    2 Suits (Charcoal, Navy Pinstripe)

    3 Sports Jackets (2 blk, 1 blk/grn)

    12 Dress Shirts (8 white, 4 black)

    4 Smart Casual Dress Shirts (3 Blues, 1 rust)

    2 Ties (Robert Talbot) Yellow, Charcoal (Short 4)

    3 Pocket squares (short one)

    1 RL Long sleeve cotton shirt (pink)

    3 RL Polos (Black, Grey, Blue)

    1 RL Long Sleeve Polo Heavy (Green and Blue with leather)

    1 RL Long Sleeve ‘Sweatshirt’ (red)

    1 RL Long Sleeve ‘hoodie’ (Brown)

    6 Jeans (Seven for All Mankind – 4 blue, 2 grey, 1 brown)

    1 Black Dress Shoes (cole haan)

    3 Driving Shoes blk ( 2 cole haan, 1 Diesel)

    1 Running Shoes (nike free)

    1 Sweats (grey, eddie bauer)

    1 RL cargo shorts

    — HOLD OVERS —

    3 sports jackets – retailored (Abboud, RL, Custom Made)

    5 Belts 2 blk/br, 3 blk decorated, 1 RL braided Br.

    1 blk loafers (cole haan)

    1 brown loafers (santoni)

    2 smart casual city shoes (Geoxx)

    1 driving shoes (cole haan)

    1 RL heavy winter hoodie

    1 Jones NY Black Car Coat

    1 North Face ‘Fleece’

    1 (?) Rain Jacket

    2 Grey Seven jeans (really need to go)

    1 RL Swim (white)

    2 RL Shorts (cargo, white)

    2 Watches (Baum Mercier, Hamilton) (can’t find the Raymond Weil)

    3 sets cufflinks

    — STILL NEEDED —

    1 Narrow Lapel Tux

    2 pleated tux shirts

    2 watch bands (br/blk)

    1 proper raincoat

    — LOSSES —

    4 RL polos (xl/custom fit)

    20 various shirts

    15 various jeans, mostly Seven brand.

    2 Abboud tuxes (wide lapel, narrow lapel)

    6 sports jackets

    4 suits

    6 shoes

    TIPS:

    – Wash your expensive jeans inside out. That’s where most of the wear comes from.

    – Wash your clothes in cold water using Woolite or some other mild detergent unless you work with dirt and sweat for a living. Hang dry your shirts on plastic hangers. They’ll last longer. (The water at the cabin ruined my clothes. Its one of the reasons I didn’t want to live there any longer.)

    – The cleaners damage your clothes. Especially the seams. You are better off doing them at home. I see all these guys with freshly pressed clothes that are falling apart.

    – Learn how to iron. Iron in front of the TV in the morning with your coffee. I do it before the shower, and lay my clothes out for the day on the bed. I love ironing. Because it’s become part of my ritual. And because my grandmother taught me how. And it reminds me of her.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-21 07:18:00 UTC

  • INTELLIGENCE Practicable Intelligence is comprised of four different factors: 1)

    INTELLIGENCE

    Practicable Intelligence is comprised of four different factors:

    1) General intelligence. Which we usually aggregate under the measurement of IQ. This is the ability to identify and make use of abstractions in real time. Given enough time, random trial and error can solve any problem. Intelligence reduces the time necessary to identify a causal relation.

    2) Short Term Memory. As a rule of thumb, a concept of any complexity can be ‘experienced’ and therefore understood, if it can be constructed from a combination of memories and stimuli within a two to three second window. Short term memory. Short term memory facilitates this process so that the association engine (intuition) can be steered toward desired ends, until enough of a construct can be created to facilitate the formation of a new idea. Einstein was being serious when he said that he had just thought about the problem longer than anyone else. (this is my particular weakness)

    3) General knowledge. The more you have, the more likely it is that a pattern that you encounter will exist in your memory rather than require pure association from your brain. General knowledge must be separated into explicit versus tacit forms, and into true (correspondence with reality) and false (failure to correspond to reality) categories. Long term memory, and the ability to access it, is necessary for the accumulation of general knowledge, and the ability to retain that knowledge by forming associations that give access to that knowledge from multiple avenues.

    4) Desires and Beliefs. If you believe or desire something that does not or cannot correspond to reality, then this In my experience intelligence comes from wanting to know the answer to a problem, rather than wanting an outcome and seeking an answer suit it.

    While intelligence can be limited by any one of these factors, most correctable human intellectual failure comes not from general intelligence, a lack of short term memory, or an absence of general knowledge. But from beliefs and desires, usually instinctual, or sentimental, that do not correspond with the reality of life in a division of knowledge and labor, whose information system is the abstraction of prices, where social cues are often contrary to price information.

    The human senses are available to almost all of us. They are easily access without rational criticism. But they tell us very little about which actions we should take. That information comes from the purely abstract information of prices. And we cannot access the content of prices without rational criticism, the institution of property which allows us to plan using prices, and a significant effort expended in planning, forgoing sensory experiences, and expending effort on the promise of reward in the future.

    In our homes, pubs, coffee houses, churches, and jobs we can rely on our senses. In the market we cannot. We can only hope that by submersion in a culture within the market that our senses adapt to the patterns that emerge from the market, expressed in the behavior of others who do understand that market, and by doing so, obtain by imitation and empathy that which we cannot obtain by abstract reason and the information supplied by prices.

    For this reason, one need not be possessed of extraordinary cognitive power, short term memory, general knowledge, or even rational wants and beliefs. One only need experience and imitate the patterns of behavior of others within that market who are successful within it.

    In simple terms, this means, that traditions, morals, ethics, and habits in a homogenous society can compensate for an unequal distribution of intelligence and impulsivity.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-19 18:34:00 UTC

  • ENTREPRENEURSHIP Money itself gains one status. And money is made by providing o

    ENTREPRENEURSHIP

    Money itself gains one status. And money is made by providing others something that they desire, and will pay for. Too many aspiring entrepreneurs look for opportunities that are fashionable and from which they can obtain status directly from the association with the endeavor, rather than possession of wealth.

    So while opportunities lay about on the ground ready for anyone to pick up, most people search endlessly for some opportunity that inspires them, but that the market does not need because its in low demand, or is in over supply.

    I don’t care what business I am in as long as it’s not immoral in some way, and the people I would have to work with or employ are pleasant to spend time with. I literally tend to sieze what’s just in front of me, because I see the ground as absolutely littered with opportunities, all of which can be made into something with a little effort. And those opportunities either provide wealth in exchange for ones effort or they don’t. If they do, the wealth confers status, and freedom to do what one wants. And it is more likely that one will obtain wealth doing what others desire, than doing what one desires for its signaling benefits. It would not matter to me if I owned a commercial cleaning service, a garbage collection service, or any other common business, as long as it provided the returns that would allow me the freedom to enjoy what I wished.

    The market serves to provide us with wealth by serving others out of our own self interest. Prices ensure that we do not live illusions about what others desire, and how much tehy desire it. And the opportunities for entrepreneurship are everywhere.

    I’m not surprised at how many people who have worked for me have gone off to create new businesses. It’s the kind of person I’m attracted to hiring. But I’m always impressed with their ideas and achievements. And I’m more impressed with the fact that they seem to be successful.

    Just in the last few years:

    – Live Area Labs (Creative – and good work as well)

    – Tier 3 (IT/Cloud)

    – Salient 6 (Tech Services)

    – A specialty legal services business (which is fascinating) that I won’t name.

    – A financial sector startup (which is really fascinating) that I won’t name.

    And that’s just off the top of my head. I should start collecting a list.

    It’s a beautiful thing. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-18 10:29:00 UTC

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” AS A COMMONS

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it. Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any. Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture. Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons. Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government. Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred. Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as of high value, Rothbardian libertarianism of little to none, and to progressives, an antithesis of their world view. This is somewhat confusing unless we take into account that those with predispositions toward libertarianism and progressivism are searching for experience and stimulation. While conservatives are searching for improving the excellence of established themes. This is why conservative art tends to be illustrative and progressive art tends to be experiential. Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial. Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS”

    It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it.

    Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any.

    Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture.

    Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons.

    Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government.

    Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred.

    Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as

    Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used

    Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial.

    Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-16 11:55:00 UTC

  • HANS HOPPE’S NEW BOOK “THE GREAT FICTION” I joined the Jeff Tucker’s new club ju

    HANS HOPPE’S NEW BOOK “THE GREAT FICTION”

    I joined the Jeff Tucker’s new club just so that I could get the book immediately on my iphone rather than wait a few days for a hard copy of it. I suppose that’s the most fannish behavior I’ve ever demonstrated in my life. But then, I feel I’ve learned almost everything of value about political philosophy from Hoppe, and that’s more respectable than being a fan of a hair band, and certainly more so than an advocate of a politician.

    It’s mostly just a case of crowing that I’ve already got The Great Fiction. I’m sure others have too – probably before I have. But I still feel like a kid who got tickets to a concert after waiting in line for three days.

    I’ve only managed to make time to savor four chapters so far, and none of them is from the new material he’s included. But it seems to be better written or at least, better edited. And as such, I think the book is eminently accessible. Something that The Economics and Ethics of Private Property is unfortunately not. But then, that books is an argument, and The Great Fiction appears to be wisdom.

    In one chapter, he creates such a wonderful narrative about the difficulty in bridging intellectual disciplines, and you can hear the subtle disappointment with mankind that has come with his age, where once would have been the bravado challenge and opportunity for demonstrating one’s intellect.

    Unfortunately, while Hoppe’s intellectual personality comes across better in this book than his prior tomes, I feel a slight loss for those people who only come to know him through his works, rather than his lectures. Because in person he makes the irony of history and our folly with it, come alive with both humor, wit and insight. He ridicules the folly of our human vanity, so that we may comfortably step back and see our most cherished beliefs as patently objectively falsehoods no less mythical than our fairy tales.

    I’m savoring these essays, and I don’t want them used up too soon. As a kid, I’d carefully save the halloween candy, so I’d always have some around until Easter. The Great Fiction is this fall’s bag of treats, and begs the same treatment. 🙂

    Curt Doolittle.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-09 16:46:00 UTC

  • People need institutions both formal and informal to help them cooperate despite

    People need institutions both formal and informal to help them cooperate despite their different feelings and objectives. instead we try to argue with one another in order to make each other agree independently of those institutions. As if any of us actually listens to or comprehends the other.

    Our institutions were designed to establish priorities among males who had extremely similar interests.

    But today we have clearly divergent interests. If only because of gender and family structure preferences. And our differences are magnified by the technology that has made us prosperous, the addition of feminine majority, and group diversity.

    If you diversify a population without altering its informal and formal institutions to allow for more complex cooperation – not upon ends but upon means – you will have institutional failure. The purpose of government is to help us cooperate despite our differences. The idea that we seek some form of truth in government is both an artifact of our prior homogeneity, the absurd bias of our democratic religion, and our belief in controlled choice rather than experimental cooperation.

    The market instead allows us to collaborate on means even though we might pursue different ends. Government as it is currently structured by contrast requires that we have similar ends or the fantasy that we can persuade one another to possess similar ends.

    When in fact it is both impossible for us to know what those similar ends should be, and given our various conflicting strategies about life in general, it is impossible for us to come to consensus on those ends. Or even understand all but a few of them.

    We are prisoners of a set of institutions that have failed us and that cannot help us cooperate in our current state.

    In most civilizations people abandon attempts at improving the government. That is the course we are on.

    Having our civic culture handed to administrative government accelerated that decline as well as our divergence. Cowering in our little spatial boxes we rail at one another about how to think and feel rather than architect institutions that would help us to cooperate on means even if we desire a multitude of ends. And that multitude of experimentation would lead to discovery of solutions none of us is wise enough to conceive on our own.

    Our vanity and hubris brought us here. Why is it that we think the next vanity of our intentions will be an exception to the rule?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-01 23:06:00 UTC