Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • A STATE THAT FIGHTS A GUERILLA MOVEMENT, WILL LOSE –“Creveld realized that when

    A STATE THAT FIGHTS A GUERILLA MOVEMENT, WILL LOSE

    –“Creveld realized that whenever a state takes on a guerrilla movement, it will lose. The reason is that when the strong are seen beating the weak (knocking down doors, roughing up people of interest, and shooting ragtag guerrillas), they are considered to be barbarians. This view, amplified by the media, will eventually eat away at the state’s ability to maintain moral cohesion and drastically damage its global image.”–

    Robb, John (2008-04-01). Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (p. 28). Turner Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 10:35:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE THE MOST ARMED, MOST SKILLED POPULACE. WHY NOT USE IT? —“The global ad

    WE HAVE THE MOST ARMED, MOST SKILLED POPULACE. WHY NOT USE IT?

    —“The global adoption of proxy guerrilla and terrorist conflict led Lind et al. to develop a model for the next generation of interstate warfare. This fourth-generation warfare (4GW) codified the use of guerrilla and terrorist proxies as the primary means of warfare between states, large and small. In Lind et al.’ s view, 4GW was a method of warfare that allowed the weak forces to defeat the strong. Within the structure of a sponsored proxy conflict, 4GW was seen as a way to waste the strength of the strong— to bleed the target state dry morally and economically. The result is an eternal war that typically ends with the target state’s inevitable defeat.”—

    Robb, John (2008-04-01). Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (p. 27). Turner Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 07:11:00 UTC

  • ALL WARS ARE CIVIL WARS. ALL GUERRILLA WARS ARE MORAL CONFLICTS. —“Unlike conv

    ALL WARS ARE CIVIL WARS. ALL GUERRILLA WARS ARE MORAL CONFLICTS.

    —“Unlike conventional wars of the first three generations, guerrilla wars are primarily moral conflicts.”—

    Robb, John (2008-04-01). Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (p. 26). Turner Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 07:06:00 UTC

  • BUSINESS VALUE OF “ENGINEERED MINGLING” –“The purpose of all this engineered mi

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/psychology_of_management/2014/05/open_plan_offices_the_new_trend_in_workplace_design.single.html#ixzz30vYjgxzHTHE BUSINESS VALUE OF “ENGINEERED MINGLING”

    –“The purpose of all this engineered mingling? It encourages something that a Bloomberg spokesperson terms “institutional eavesdropping.” Employees get a sense of what’s going on in every part of the company—almost through osmosis. As Michael Bloomberg puts it in his book, workers “absorb information peripherally while focusing elsewhere.” And this fuller understanding of corporate doings seems to quell office paranoia. “Openness also constantly puts [employees] in front of their peers,” Bloomberg writes, “preventing childish fantasies that coworkers are out to get them.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 05:50:00 UTC

  • “A corrupt Nigeria won’t do much damage outside of its borders, but a corrupt St

    –“A corrupt Nigeria won’t do much damage outside of its borders, but a corrupt States or Great Britain is a terrifying reality.”–

    Don Finnegan

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 05:17:00 UTC

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumul

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz

    —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumulation even those who leech on producers, the welfare, food stamp, state pension and state income dependent can live an extremely wealthy life in the most Smithian of senses despite not producing any value. “—

    This brings up an interesting point. The assumption in libertarian thought, is that adherence to moral codes (NAP) gain one access to the market – access to opportunity created by participating in the market. This assumes, as was true in ancient and medieval (pre-industrial) eras, that we all had labor to contribute. Further, that we gained right to hold property by fighting for the property rights of all members of the polity. These were entry costs, if not also entry-cost-rituals.

    Adherence to norms is costly. Respect for rituals is costly. Observance of private property rights is costly. Production is costly in effort. These are very high costs that the individual must bear whether or not he obtains rewards from the market, by paying those costs he makes possible the reduction of transaction costs, that makes the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) possible.

    Thought experiment: What happens if only 10% of the population is capable of engaging in production, but their production was sufficient to both keep say 80% of that production, and leave 20% of it for the remaining 80% of the population? The 80% have no means of engaging in production. And adherence to norms, including the norm of property rights, is of no value to them. Yet we could either exterminate them, or pay them to police the social order and make possible the low transaction costs, so that for the minority 10%, the voluntary organization of production remains possible.

    So, if ordinary people, engaged in production or not, respect AND enforce property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, they are in fact doing labor. If we do not pay them for their efforts, I think that this is free riding. And they are right not to respect property. Or other norms for that matter. And they have no money to function as consumers unless we do so anyway.

    So, rather than treat moral rules and private property as natural laws – spurious as that magical term is – I prefer to hold myself to the constant rule of voluntary exchange. If we want people to adhere to and enforce rules so that we can engage in the voluntary organization of production, then we can pay them to. I don’t think they have a ‘right’ to compensation. But then, I don’t think we can hold them to adhering to property rights, which is a very high cost, if we don’t pay them for it.

    By applying property rights CONSISTENTLY I end up with this logic. And with that logic, and that consistency, all the fallacies of moral argument disappear. Every human action at all times in favor of cooperation is an exchange.

    How does one price payment for adherence to norms? I’m still working on that but it actually looks pretty simple.

    Maybe too many jumps there. Think it should be easy for you. Happy to clarify otherwise.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 02:10:00 UTC

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz: —“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfi

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz:

    —“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfish gene one but a value loaded social darwinistic one which raises an eyebrow of suspicion as it developed in the imperialistic era of agricultural-industrial domination over hunter gatherers throughout the world. If the data about the Ashkenazi jewish IQ is correct and the argument proposed by Gregory Clark in his Farewell to Alms is correct. There´s no reason to disbelieve that: given an unhampered market, sovereign private property society without a state and the consequent welfare programs that follow from it(military overproduction, affirmative action, minimum wage, etc included) the intergenerational tendency would be eugenic. EVEN controlling for higher availability of medical facilities, pharmaceuticals, etc. After all many of the genes responsible for immune processes are fairly recent….The [active] social darwinism of the 19th century is antiquated and unnecessary given the fundamental institutions of a free society. Having said that here are some Hegelian thoughts on anarcho-libertarianism as the millennial crusade for the Spirit of the world emanating the ultimate and final ethic.”—

    Well said. Elegantly. My question is whether the NAP/IVP is a sufficient basis for that order anarchic order. Propertarianism would suggest that high performing groups adhere to much, much, higher standards, and then subjugate their masses by using lower standards, and trade with other states on even lower standards. I think that the NAP/IVP is too low a standard if we ask people to voluntarily join an anarchic polity. And we only think it’s OK because as libertarians we have a cognitive bias (moral blindness) that discounts the cost of OBJECTIVELY unethical and immoral actions as described by Propertarianism’s spectrum that prohibits free riding.

    Free Riding is the negative claim and property the positive claim, but the two claims are identical under propertarianism. Where under NAP/IVP prevention of free riding stops at physical aggression. However, people with higher moral thresholds (and who are stronger) see actions such as blackmail, and ‘cheating’, as well as immoral behavior, as violations of the contract for cooperation which puts in place the prohibition on free riding.

    I would never join a low trust polity, because it would be poorer than a higher trust polity, since trust determines the velocity of innovation, production and trade.

    So I agree with your argument that all we need is an anarchic polity. I disagree that the NAP/IVP is sufficient for the formation of it. And while I haven’t done surveys yet to prove it (I will) science, logic and history, are pretty clearly on my side.

    Anarchy is right. Sure. But the NAP/IVP is insufficient. I do not have the empirical evidence to demonstrate what level of suppression of free riding in the unethical and immoral range would be required for the formation of a voluntary polity, but I suggest that it will be far closer to the very limit of Propertarianism’s spectrum of prohibitions, than it is to rothbard’s NAP/IVP.

    Hopefully within a year or two I will have that evidence.

    But I’ll put money on the fact that only indoctrinated rothbardians choose the NAP/IVP level of suppression. That’s because it’s pretty clear that human beings prefer (logically) seller beware, rather than buyer beware. And propertarianism ensconces that in the legal code.

    Thanks for great (rare) dialog.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 01:48:00 UTC

  • TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Difference-Female-Brains/dp/046500556X/IT’S TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 11:59:00 UTC

  • PHASES OF WARFARE 1 non-military asymmetric warfare (info, psycho, ideological,

    http://romaninukraine.com/new-paper-on-russian-military-thinking/8 PHASES OF WARFARE

    1 non-military asymmetric warfare (info, psycho, ideological, diplo, economic)

    2 special operations to mislead pol & mil leadership via diplomatic, media, channels, leaks, false data & orders

    3 intimidation, deceiving, and bribing govt and military officers, to make them abandon duties etc

    4 destabilizing propaganda to increase public discontent, boosted by the arrival of Russian bands of militants, escalating subversion.

    5 establishment of no-fly zones & blockades, extensive use of private military in close cooperation with armed opposition units.

    6 military action, preceded by special ops, cyber, sabotage, espionage, subversion

    7 info ops, electronic warfare, air harrassment, high precision weapons, EMP,

    8 mopping up, with artillery, airdrops etc

    10 PRINCIPLES

    1 direct influence matters more than direct destruction

    2 instead of direct annihilation of opponent, promote his inner decay

    3 war using culture matters more than weapons & technology

    4 special forces & commercial irregular forces instead of conventional military

    5 from the traditional (3D) battleground to information/psychological warfare and war of perceptions;

    6 from direct clash to contactless war;

    7 from a superficial and compartmentalised war to a total war, including the enemy’s internal side and base;

    8 from war in the physical environment to war in human consciousness and cyberspace

    9 from symmetric to assymetric warfare, combining political, economic, info, techno & ecological campaigns

    10 From war in a defined period of time to a state of permanent war as the natural condition in national life.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 18:37:00 UTC

  • ON THE PRECISE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATING STRATEGY —“Strategy is required whe

    ON THE PRECISE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATING STRATEGY

    —“Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns.”—

    I disagree with the structure of the author’s argument, first because it’s imprecise in that it’s not causally informative, and secondly, it’s stated defensively as a cost rather than offensively as a benefit. So let me see if I can restated it as a on offensive benefit.

    I’ve taught people for at least fifteen years, that in any organization, each individual makes thousands of decisions a day. Most decisions are unclear, or rather, tie-breakers. And they must use some means of determining how to choose among marginally indifferent decisions. Without some means of choosing they will either use what little information they have to make the choice, or they will choose what is best for them in the absence of alternative information about which choice to make.

    If everyone understands your strategy then they choose to break the tie in favor of your strategy, and subordinates force their superiors to break ties in favor of strategies – and resist contradictions to the strategy, thousands of times per day.

    For this reason, short, medium, and long term strategies should be well communicated in a single voice from the top on a quarterly or semi annual basis. this way, you supply everyone in your organization the means of making decisions which to them appear to be marginally indifferent, but which collectively and cumulativly provide meaningful progress towards your strategic goals.

    In my opinion, the thousands of minor decisions, each of which moves microscopically in the direction of your strategy is very often, more influential than your greater more direct initiatives.

    I have found that if I do it right, my strategy work can all but eliminate the rest of my job. There have been entire multiple-month periods where I have had nothing to do, and nothing I should do, because the organization is well enough informed to make decisions and to check each other’s decisions, without my assistance.

    And the truth is, this gives individuals a sense of much desirable and appreciated sovereignty (feeling of being in control of their lives), of personal confidence in their decisions, and reduced friction from internal conflict and politicking. It also helps the organization identify and ostracize maladaptive individuals.

    I know that the success of this approach is partly a product of the high trust society of the west, and the desire for sovereignty and heroic recognition, but having now experimented elsewhere, It seems to me that it is possible to train organizations in at least the eastern european countries, if not asia.

    FROM “STRATEGY: A HISTORY”

    —“This is why a strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns.

    …

    Having a strategy suggests an ability to look up from the short term and the trivial to view the long term and the essential, to address causes rather than symptoms, to see woods rather than trees.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:52:00 UTC