Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • ALEJANDRO VEINTIMILLA GETS IT RIGHT: ITS INSTITUTIONS NOT CULTURE (yes, you can

    ALEJANDRO VEINTIMILLA GETS IT RIGHT: ITS INSTITUTIONS NOT CULTURE

    (yes, you can understand Aristocratic Egalitarianism)(reposted for clarity)

    –“Hi Curt, I have now read all your blog.”—

    That’s evidence that it is possible at least. lol. Smart questions you’ve raised demonstrate that it’s comprehensible too.

    —“I can say it is one of the most interesting propositions and analysis I have read in years about this topic.’–

    I get that a lot. Lets just hope it’s not madness in the end analysis. Seriously though, I have worked on this very hard for a long time. I am pretty sure it is the reformation that libertarianism needs. Marketing the argument in digestible form however is non-trivial, and reducing it to marketable arguments is the most difficult part of the struggle.

    –“Aristocratic egalitarianism” and “High trust society” are concepts I will borrow myself and incorporate them to my rational understanding of my ideology.”—

    Good. Yes, Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state.

    —-” That said, I still have five questions I will write here. I will start with one I think we can debate on:”—-

    OK. I think the all are reducible to a single question, and a single response. But lets go through them all anyway.

    Q1A

    —“Where does “Aristocratic Egalitarianism” and “High Trust Society” have their roots?”—

    The battle tactics of indo european warriors (cattle raiders). Heroism, Independent maneuver, wheel, horse and bronze. Keeping what one takes. Wealth accumulation. imitation. Preservation of individual status. (See Keegan’s History of Warfare, Marija Gimbutas, JP Mallory).

    Impacted land allocation (various forms of manorialism) in which married couples could only obtain land to work, delaying marriage. Slowing birth rates. Suppressing birth rates of the underclasses and impulsive. (See Emmanuel Todd).

    The church broke tribes and families by prohibiting cousin marriage so that it could more cheaply acquire land. The side effect was outbreeding and extension of trust to all (universalism). This in turn required the rule of common law be constantly improved to settle property disputes.

    Chivalry made it possible to join aristocracy without really fighting others. Commerce and chivalry made it possible for merchants to imitate and join the aristocratic classes (middle classes).

    We end up with high trust, common law, property rights, outbreeding, and extension of the franchise to all property owners (business people who are heads of families). ie: absolute nuclear families.

    Q1B

    —“You suggest they can Only appear over the values of an Absolute Nuclear Family society. You give credit to the protestant values and you even use graphs to prove it (so yes, protestant values deserve credit). But I think you may be missing one important step: Why are ANF societies fertile land for Aristocratic Egalitarianism? I believe you don’t describe this process deeply enough.”—

    I don’t give any credit to protestanism really. it’s just that the countries that rebelled against the inbred-corrupt, bureacratic church were those with ancient outbred ethics I refer to. So that group is called protestant but protestant ethics are JUSTIFICATIONS of ancient habits, not causes. Philosophy always provides justification. That’s its function.

    I give all the credit to heroism. So did earlier historians. We just didn’t have enough evidence to explain why. I think Durant (french catholic) and Toynbee (english protestant) and Spengler (german protestant) all manage to figure it out. We needed to understand the economic relationship between outbreeding, trust, risk and law to understand why heroism (individual accumulation of demonstrated excellence) defeated family and tribe hierarchies to create frictionless production and trade. (or at least I did. I’m not sure anyone else really has done this on the scale I’m talking about. Although some authors certainly come close.

    —“Are ANF and protestant values the Only way to High Trust Societies(HTS)? Why?. I believe the reason ANF and protestant values have been a way to HTS in the past is because of the relationship the people in those societies have with “law” or, more explicitly, with their concept of “what law should be” (that tacit intersubjective set of rights that lives “under” the written law).”—

    No, they aren’t the only way. Thats the difference between evolving a set of institutions by experimentation, and choosing to implement a set of institutions by deliberate analysis, understanding, and choice. In theory if you can find a king and a set of judges and enough sheriffs to respect the law – hopefully the initial set all from an extended family, then you can implement property rights, rule of law, prohibition on inbreeding, and a requirement for operationalism in public speech.

    So, your analysis was correct. IT’s the law that matters. (which is sort of what hayek was trying to say. Hoppe argues it’s property, first and law second but those are two sides of the same coin. Hoppe is just more right than Hayek.

    —“Now, that relationship with the law can be achieved not only through protestant values. In fact, I believe that if the people have a correct and intelligent relationship with Reason, they will end up having correct institutions (with or without ANF and protestant values). If they abandon their “magical” (in Carl Jung sense of ‘magical thinking’) relationship with the state, they will end up rationalizing their concept of “what law should be” and will give birth to High Trust Societies.”—

    You probably have the smart people disease (bias) of overstating the value and utility of reason, and undervalue the utility of institutions. I’m pretty sure I can prove that reason is an outlier, and that habits, institutions, and norms are much more important than reason. Reason is terribly frail. Property rights and common law are terribly durable.

    —“So, if higher intelligence and a reason-oriented society can also give birth to Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Why are protestant values and ANF the “best” way go? I think I can make a case against them as “the best solution” and of course I think it is hard to defend the assessment that they are the “only” way to go.”—

    The reason that higher intelligence matters is that we are both better able to identify deception and to explain our ideas in support of cooperation at about 106 and above. For this reason, as we approach 100 IQ in contemporary meaning, morality increases rapidly. Since Pareto’s principle appears everywhere: that 20% of the population controls 80% of the resources, the necessity is to get as many people in the population over 106, and preferably over 122 (at which point creativity really starts to kick in) as possible.

    If I had my way I would index IQ against whatever 106 currently is so that we understood that like boiling water, IQ has a meaningful minimum bar for declaring someone fully ‘human’. But since that’s not going to happen I’ll stick with “Smart Fraction Theory”.

    To answer this last question, I don’t think that protestant values mean very much. I think, as you suggest, that formal institutions that force informal institutions of high trust are what matter. And I think a minority with a vested durable interest in preserving those formal and informal institutions (a monarch and nobility) is the best way to accomplish doing it.

    I have experimented (thought through pretty thoroughly) various means of ending our reliance on the ANF. And that would really require ending all legal concept of ‘family’ while retaining individual property rights at the extreme, and totally prohibiting government from the construction of laws.

    The problem is, that for 2/3 of males, and half of females, that situation would provide incentives to do what they are currently doing and expand socialism to culturally and genetically suicidal levels requiring constant third world immigration. I think I have answers to it. But I would prefer answers that had greater universal appeal. And I need to finish working on those answers before advocating them. It’s too controversial.

    CLOSING

    So you were pretty spot on, except that you missed the fact that I already agreed with you by confusing the source and evolution of those institutions of law and property with the possibility of implementing those institutions of law and property regardless of social convention.

    Thanks for the smart questions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 14:55:00 UTC

  • RULES OF SUPERPREDATOR COOPERATION Someone needs to remind this woman that human

    http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/news/lesbian-mayor-rules-that-all-bathrooms-now-unisex/THE RULES OF SUPERPREDATOR COOPERATION

    Someone needs to remind this woman that human males are the world’s most successful superpredator – and that we just BARELY manage to contain each other MOST of the time. And that we have all sorts of rules and habits and obligations in order to contain each other.

    And if women don’t SEE those rules, habits and obligations or see the NEED for those rules, habits and obligations that has NOTHING to do with the NECESSITY for those rules habits and obligations.

    Those rules, which we carefully but unknowingly evolved over millennia, allow us to thrive in a high trust society by carefully allocating incentives to males to cooperate at every level of society. Those rules are counter-intuitive, fragile and unique in human history.

    W.E.I.R.D. societies like ours are an unnatural exception – a temporary oddity made possible by a short term asymmetry of technological innovation, soon to be quashed by social and reproductive and social superiority of universal paternalism and the traditional family.

    Women are, if we catalog their votes and their publications, incredibly ‘dumb’ about political systems. I can only suspect that it’s that they have different intuitions than we men do. Because they demonstrate very different concerns from what men do – they take the art of containing males as a natural force of gravity, rather than a fragile accident of history.

    We men create political systems to contain each other – and to force cooperation rather than predation and parasitism. Women are, in fact, only along for the ride. Because politics is the organized application of violence to provide means of cooperation between superpredators. And female participation in politics is a luxury of the success of the rules, habits and obligations that their male counterparts have built over the centuries.

    **Feminism paired with socialism, is just a program that facilitates the conquest of egalitarian males, by inegalitarian males. Women are not material in the long run. But in the short run they have incrementally destroyed western civilization by destroying the incentives of males to act according to the rules, habits, and obligations needed to constrain males.**

    The end of the single-motherhood era is near ended. Because without marriage and universal property rights, male parasitism, predation, paternalism and tyranny are logical preferences providing superior incentives.

    Just how it is ladies. Deal with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 10:24:00 UTC

  • IS RIGHT ON WAR Roberts can get off base a bit, but this is one of his better ar

    http://thecrux.com/controversial-post-why-world-war-iii-is-inevitable-now/ROBERTS IS RIGHT ON WAR

    Roberts can get off base a bit, but this is one of his better articles. His central argument, is that war feeds the deep state, and is the means by which our liberties have been systematically eroded, and that erosion justified.

    My argument is that the virtue of a heavily armed and well trained militia is that you are an unconquerable people, but unable to export your violence.

    I have no respect at all for libertarian pacifism as a means of obscuring one’s free-riding. A militia and a mastery of violence are necessary costs that we must bear, just as respect for property rights are costs we must bear. Violence is a virtue. And failing to master violence, or hiring state or private mercenaries, is the surest route to a society without virtue, and without virtue, without liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-03 14:27:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-02 19:38:00 UTC

  • HOW URBANITES DESTROY SOCIETY –“The mobs of great cities add just so much to th

    HOW URBANITES DESTROY SOCIETY

    –“The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. .. . I consider the class of artificers as the panderers of vice, and the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned.”– Jefferson

    Prophetic. And so why did he not structure a defense against them?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-02 12:58:00 UTC

  • SEASTEADING – LUNATIC FRINGE: THE RIGHT WING COMMUNE —“Those guys are crazy,”

    SEASTEADING – LUNATIC FRINGE: THE RIGHT WING COMMUNE

    —“Those guys are crazy,” says Richard Walker, a professor emeritus of geography at the University of California at Berkeley who follows The Seasteading Institute. He says the seasteaders look a lot like the revolutionaries who took on Czar Nicholas II. “The communist ideal was that spontaneous uprisings would create a new world for workers,” Walker says. “To me, this looks like a right-wing version of that.”—

    Aristocracy: Take the land. Hold it. Deny others access to it. Deny them political access to it. And do not ask their permission.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-31 10:42:00 UTC

  • DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS by Alex Mark Nieo

    DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS

    by Alex Mark Nieora

    —“Equally it may be said that diversity is easier to govern as diversity necessarily entails fragmented and divided cultures, preferences, nationalities, languages and abilities that may lack an overarching and unifying constant between themselves. Thereby diversity provides in itself the division of divide and rule politics without even necessitating the implementation of external agents of division.”—

    BUT THE FALLACY OF RAWLS REMAINS

    –“However, diversity is also the hallmark and bedrock – the sine qua non really – of liberty and tolerance. So diversity is a challenge. It is a challenge also in regards to tolerating the intolerant. This is a dilemma that was confronted by certain legal philosophers such as John Rawls in his later work The Law of The Peoples, which addresses international politics.

    Previously in A Theory of Justice, he explains the reasons why diversity must be tolerated for not only the greater but the individual good through his concept of the original position.

    In the Law of The Peoples Rawls argues that the legitimacy of a liberal international order is contingent on tolerating decent peoples. Rawls held that decent peoples might have state religions and deny adherents of minority faiths the right to hold positions of power within the state, and might indeed organise political participation via consultation hierarchies rather than elections.

    However, he maintained that no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. He held peoples do not have the right to the mutual respect and tolerance possessed by liberal and decent peoples.”—

    “DECENT PEOPLE”

    I’ll define decent in Propertarian terms: those people who have suppressed all free riding from criminal to ethical to moral to conspiratorial. One is more decent than another if one suppresses more free riding than another.

    (I despise Rawls as an obscurantist. Hoppe is right. The only moral question is property.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-30 07:20:00 UTC

  • “Biology is not destiny. Biology is history. But it also constrains what can bec

    —“Biology is not destiny. Biology is history. But it also constrains what can become history.”—

    Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-30 05:08:00 UTC

  • FUTURE OF AMERICA IS NOW “Egalitarianism leads to democracy; democracy leads to

    http://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid-ebook/dp/B00564TFM4/THE FUTURE OF AMERICA IS NOW

    “Egalitarianism leads to democracy; democracy leads to socialism; socialism leads to economic destruction; and democratic socialism in multicultural societies leads to death and democide. This, in shocking detail, is what Ilana Mercer illustrates superbly in her case study of post-apartheid South Africa. America’s political and intellectual ‘elites’ will ignore this book, because it is politically ‘incorrect.’ We can only do so at our own peril.” – HANS-HERMANN HOPPE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 06:28:00 UTC

  • RENOUNCING IDEOLOGY –“Only by renouncing *ALL* ideology, can we see man as he i

    RENOUNCING IDEOLOGY

    –“Only by renouncing *ALL* ideology, can we see man as he is.”— James Burnham.

    I’m going to state that a bit differently: only through science can we see man as he is. All else is justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 05:23:00 UTC