Curt Doolittle

Form: Question

  • WHY ARE FATHERS BETTER SINGLE PARENTS? Ok. So the data is beginning to look like

    WHY ARE FATHERS BETTER SINGLE PARENTS?

    Ok. So the data is beginning to look like single fathers are much better parents producing happier and more successful children than single mothers.

    Given the vast propaganda to the contrary, and the demonization of men by the feminist movement, why would this be true?

    Is there some sort of selection bias? It looks like the researchers try to compensate for it in their models. What else could it be? Is it income or class related? (I suspect that it’s skewed heavily to the right). But the answer doesn’t just leap out at me.

    There is something very valuable to be learned about parenting, and society in answering this question.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-26 13:06:00 UTC

  • SHOOTERS ARE ALL LIBERALS? (is this true?)

    SHOOTERS ARE ALL LIBERALS?

    (is this true?)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-22 06:22:00 UTC

  • A QUESTION FOR THE LEFT: IF IT MEANT THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE A FAR

    A QUESTION FOR THE LEFT: IF IT MEANT THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE A FAR MORE MATERIALLY EQUAL SOCIETY, PERHAPS THE MOST MATERIALLY EQUAL IN THE WORLD, WOULD YOU THEN CEASE DENIAL OF INEQUALITY OF ABILITY, INEQUALITY OF RACES, AND THE IRRECONCILABILITY OF GENDER PREFERENCES?

    I think you would. And you should. Because that is what it will take for you to have a heterogeneous society that includes redistribution.

    Propertarianism solves the problem of politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-13 18:06:00 UTC

  • CITIZENSHIP: A BANK, AN INSURANCE COMPANY AND A LAWYER. Why do we need to be the

    CITIZENSHIP: A BANK, AN INSURANCE COMPANY AND A LAWYER.

    Why do we need to be the property of a government?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-30 13:04:00 UTC

  • IS IT TRUE THAT WEALTH MAKES A PEOPLE STUPID AND OF NECESITY SELFISH? I’m strugg

    IS IT TRUE THAT WEALTH MAKES A PEOPLE STUPID AND OF NECESITY SELFISH?

    I’m struggling with this problem. What we call enlightenment individualism is important in the sense that we must have several private property in order to have individual incentives to act, and out of self interest, to act in the interest of extra-familial “others”.

    But the wealth that results from these incentives to produce gives us freedom to buy the luxury of spatial freedom. And with it, the luxury of freedom from daily compromise with others.

    Society requires information systems that compensate fir our limited perception, knowledge and comprehension. The first is interpersonal compromise. the second is the market. The third is money. The fourth is accounting.

    This is society.

    But without interpersonal compromise. Can we in fact maintain those dependent institutions.

    I am not yet sure.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-23 00:26:00 UTC

  • CHALLENGE: ETHICS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Not sure I have the time in January t

    http://publicreason.net/2012/12/11/call-for-papers-iv-meetings-on-ethics-and-political-philosophy-university-of-minho-braga-may-20-21-2013/A CHALLENGE: ETHICS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

    Not sure I have the time in January to put forth a paper. But the conference looks like an opportunity for propertarianism.

    http://publicreason.net/2012/12/11/call-for-papers-iv-meetings-on-ethics-and-political-philosophy-university-of-minho-braga-may-20-21-2013/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PublicReason+%28Public+Reason%29

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-13 02:48:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU HAVE CHIVALRY WITHOUT ARISTOCRACY? The west is synonymous with Christend

    CAN YOU HAVE CHIVALRY WITHOUT ARISTOCRACY?

    The west is synonymous with Christendom. Christendom is synonymous with Aristocracy. Aristocracy with chivalry. Chivalry with the means by which males seek status by service. Aristocracy is synonymous with property ownership. Because aristocracy is private government. The unstated property of the western high trust society is the break with paternalistic familial-ism: universal-ism by outlawing cousin marriages and therefore outlawing tribal property, tribal inheritance, and tribal political power. Status in this environment can only be obtained by actions.

    The high trust society is a product of chivalry, aristocracy, property, without which males have no means of status seeking.

    (I’m still working on this. But the basic problem is that Ferguson’s six killer apps aren’t enough of the story.)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-07 08:09:00 UTC

  • NEEDED HT Kinsella

    http://mises.org/daily/3412/Konkin-on-Libertarian-StrategyCRITIQUE NEEDED

    HT Kinsella

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-29 02:05:00 UTC

  • DO ANY OTHER PROTESTANTS HOLD THE SUBCONSCIOUS FEAR THAT IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT

    DO ANY OTHER PROTESTANTS HOLD THE SUBCONSCIOUS FEAR THAT IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU’RE HAPPY THEN GOD WILL PUNISH YOU?

    Or is it just genetic. 🙂

    Perhaps an ambiguous riddle obscures it enough to sneak off with a bit of humble celebration.

    A year off. Successful writing. Painful Illness. Curative surgery. A new venue. A new business. And a group of great friends.

    My friend Navin Mithel once told me he never felt wealthier than when working as a kid in a restaurant. The money you make is yours and it’s in your hand. It’s enough. You know how to make more of it. You have no long term obligations. -That sounds like freedom to me. And freedom is happiness. It is the undiscovered valley. Sense that the future is full of opportunity.

    A musician friend asked me last night why I had the eyes of an eighteen year old. Bright, joyful, and full of energy.

    My personality is returning to its natural state of frequent giddiness. I recognize myself in the mirror again. I love every human being again. And I can do it without battling constant pain.

    I wish that it was as easy as waiting tables. 🙂 But the wisdom of the statement prevails.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-19 02:50:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: ON IMPULSIVITY (TIME PREFERENCE) AND POPULATIONS What is the percentag

    QUESTION: ON IMPULSIVITY (TIME PREFERENCE) AND POPULATIONS

    What is the percentage of individuals with high time preference (high impulsivity) that will block the creation of norms, and therefore institutions, consisting of low time preference (low impulsivity)?

    I have been trying to get my arms around this problem for the past few years, and my travels lately, into a low trust, but low impulsivity society have helped me understand it a bit more clearly.

    Unless groups with low time preference have the right of exclusion (ostracization) then there is no defense against even ten percent of the population having a high time preference.

    I know that at something under ten percent, populations stop integrating and start seeking identity and political power. But at what point do populations of high time preference individuals, regardless of identity or power seeking (no elites to represent their interest) prevent the formation of low time preference norms and therefore low time preference institutions?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-15 13:06:00 UTC