Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • How Many Of You Are Libertarian?

    You will be surprised by this, but, roughly speaking, a quarter of the population expresses surveyed preferences that are libertarian, a quarter conservative, a quarter liberal, and a quarter anti-libertarian.

    Power could be maintained in the USA with fiscally conservative, and slowly enacted socially liberal policies (which is what happens anyway, after a lot of distraction and infighting.)

    That this roughly reflects the gender distribution in the population, and a fairly even distribution between the genders, would actually make common sense. (It does). 

    What has altered the political landscape, and continues to, is the number of single women and single mothers in the voting pool has increased substantially since 1960.  At present, it’s arguable, that all other things being equal, single women and mothers decide elections. 

    That is one of the reasons that candidates now must be somewhat attractive. Because for single women, and single mothers, the attractiveness of a candidate is a meaningful reason for their vote. If a candidate is both attractive, and well spoken, and supports redistribution and equalitarianism – redistribution outside of the nuclear family, the vote is all but ensured.

    For most poeple who understand these demographic issues, it’s saddening, because american politics, and the politics of all democracies, are just form of  entertainment that is a vast waste of time and energy that is determined by a small number of axis of influence: the homogeneity (good) vs diversity (bad) in a population. The structure of the family unit from individual, to family, to extended family, clan and tribe.  The size of the population (big is bad, small is good.)   In other words, you will get a ‘Denmark’ if you have a small homogenous country of nuclear families, because in the nuclear family both genders have equal reproductive interests.

    I suspect that this is one of the most profound things you can learn – certainly on Quora.

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-you-are-libertarian

  • Despite The Obvious Differences In Cultural Work Ethic Between American And Chinese Workers, Why Has America Remained The Most Productive Nation Per Worker In The World?

    The chinese will lose their Work Ethic just like American Ethnicity and People and Japanese, when enough of them are in the Middle Class (social class) and urbanized that they no longer fear going back to the farm – where real hard work must be done.
    🙂

    https://www.quora.com/Despite-the-obvious-differences-in-cultural-work-ethic-between-American-and-Chinese-workers-why-has-America-remained-the-most-productive-nation-per-worker-in-the-world

  • In A Hundred Years Time, What Do You Think People Will Consider To Be The Great Moral Failure Of Our Era? For The Purposes Of This Question, Let Us Define ‘our Era’ As 2000-2013.

    I WILL TRY TO GIVE  YOU A BETTER ANSWER

    1) Hayek argued that the 20th centuries and its wars would be remembered as an era of mysticism ushered in by Marx and Freud, culminating in the reliigon of Postmodernism (liberalism) – the most recent incarnation of Zoroastrianism – saying false things repeatedly in order to achieve one’s ends.  We have been fighting against this religion in science and technology for a few decades now, and this misdirection, starting in the 60’s and achieving it’s heights in the 1970’s, has consumed much of the research time in academia.

    2) it appears that this battle has resulted in a considerable number of insights into technology.  But, as our economy crumbles from having consumed the last wave of technological innovation (information technology), progress on research and development continues.

    3) The wildcard is the great upheavals that will happen in the world as western technological superiority for the past 500 years is neutralized by the adoption of consumer capitalism worldwide, and inexpensive labor in previously unindustrialized countries, lowers the RELATIVE advantage of western countries.  THe primary advantage the northern european countries had, as did the anglo countires founded by the british empire, was that the high trust society of the out-bred families (nation as a family) created a homogenous enough culture that this commercial trust could create extraordinary competitive organizations.  I suspect that the cultures that come to dominate these areas will not perpetuate the high trust society and the nuclear family for cultural reasons, and that the continued decline in the nuclear family will do the same. So that the only material cultural advantage of the west will be lost.

    4) The reason you cannot judge moral consequences in the future is that morality is a product of the reproductive strategy of people at later times, under later technologies, using later political organizations, and they tend to demonize things that are convenient, not true.  For example, aristocracy and manorialism were very important to western development  as was the church.  WIthout these institutions we could not have achieved our technical advantage over the rest of the world.  We demonized the monarchies in order to sieze power.  But there is very little evidence that supports any of our claims about victorian industrial evils or evils of kings and princes. In fact, the evidence is pretty much the other direction.  SO if we demonize things that were good, and we still admire things that aer terribly evil (socialism and communism) then why should we thing that there is a rational basis for future moral contrivances, other than whatever convenience suits their cause at the time?

    Hopefully this provides some thought and context. I suspect hayek will be correct amongst intellectuals if he is remembered for it.  Otherwise, it is just as likely that they will think were are stupid for our form of social security instead of the singaporean – for purely logical reasons.   Why didn’t we adopt the singaporean model of social security?  It might be that they accuse us of doing it for relgious reasons – and they would be right.

    https://www.quora.com/In-a-hundred-years-time-what-do-you-think-people-will-consider-to-be-the-great-moral-failure-of-our-era-For-the-purposes-of-this-question-let-us-define-our-era-as-2000-2013

  • Is Having A Job A Right?

    SOME OK ANSWERS BY OTHERS, BUT I WILL GIVE A BETTER ONE

    A right is something provided by a contract. We can in theory create a contract that states that every person has  a right be as attractive as a victoria’s secret model.  The problem is, that the provision isn’t enforceable  because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequence of even trying would probably be really bad (somehow… although I can’t think of any at the moment.)

    NEGATIVE RIGHTS, are things do by avoiding doing something: killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud, are all things we can avoid doing.  And since it means avoiding something, we can, every single one of us, avoid killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud and all such damage to life and property.

    Jobs are called POSITIVE RIGHTS. They require resources, and resources that no one has to provide.

    One can have a right to a job in the sense that no one can be prohibited from working, who is willing, by a government. That is a negative right. It says no one may restrain another from engaging in the voluntary trade of his effort in exchange for something that he wants (money.)  But one cannot have the right to have a job provided, because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequences of even trying would be really bad.

    THe international declaration of human rights contains a number of provisions (22-26) are positive rights, which were included in order to satisfy the then-powerful communist governments, the same way the north was required to allow for slavery in the constitution inorder to gain the compliance of the south.

    The question is whether positive rights are possible to provide. Or whether it is only possible to provide insurance against destitution (which appears possible).  This important question isn’t yet answered because we haven’t been doing it long enough to be sure. It certainly appears that both Europe and the USA are having significant economic, cultural and demographic problems because of these policies – which can only be satisfied with the use of ponzi schemes.

    (And yes, I am happy to argue with anyone on this point including our favorite left wing Nobel Prize winner.)

    Cheers
    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-having-a-job-a-right

  • Has The Canadian Government Ever Acknowledged The Country Formation Was A Crime?

    A crime is a violation of a contract, where laws are properties of a contract for norms within a society fo people with similar goals, manners, ethics, morals, language and reproductive strategies. Even if the contract is nautural law, and even if natural law only applies to people within a government, not across governments.  Human rights are a post-war extension of natural rights.  We have attempted to legitimize conquest only in those cases where those extended rights are violated. While it is arguable that natural rights existed at the time, it is also arguable that human rights did not exist at the time.

    But since none of these contracts apply, conquest is not a crime. There was no contract. The reason for conquest, whether by violence, or immigration, or import of religion, or revolution, is to replace one set of rights and obligations with another set of rights and obligations.

    You may dislike conquest. You may argue in retrospect that we should not conquer primitive peoples. You may argue that we should not conquer primitive peoples even if we are more beneficial conquerors than any of our competing conquerors, and therefore commit the lesser of evils.

    Conquest is not a crime unless immigration, new religion, new political parties, are a crime. Immigration, religion and political parties are implemented under the threat of violence, and therefore the only difference is the rate and means by which one conducts conquest, and the rapidity at which rights, obligations and the allocation of property is rearranged. 

    It is not clear that the french revolution, and its bloody excesses, nor the philosophy that it created, which led to marxism, and 100M murderous deaths because of marxism was not a conquest. It was. And nothing good came of it.

    Conversely, it is quite clear that the conquest spread by anglo-empirical-science, acounting, property rights and capitalism were a conquest, that in turn, raised billions out of mysticism, ignorance and poverty.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Canadian-government-ever-acknowledged-the-country-formation-was-a-crime

  • What Reservations Do You Have About Liberal Principles?

    Liberalism is the political wing of a religion.  That religion is Postmodernism.  Postmodernism was created as a linguistic attack on reason, in order to find a solution to seizing political power, given the failure of socialism in theory and in practice.

    Irrational contradiction is a necessary and pervasive tactic in the postmodern religion. Instead of believing in mystical divinities, this religion attributes false properties to mankind, then advocates belief in natural contradictions, very similar to jewish and christian contradictions, in order to avoid attacks by reason against their arguments.  THere is absolutely NOTHING different between the religion of liberals (Postmodernism) and the religion of social conservatives (christianity) except that postmodernism puts power in the state, and american protestant christianity is an organized opposition to the state. Both of which are fighting for power to control the state, in order to protect their interests.

    EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL (POSTMODERN) IRRATIONALITY

    (from Hicks)

    THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM
    The left is a kleptocracy, and its religion is postmodernism.

    “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

    1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

    2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

    3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil.

    4) Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

    5) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

    There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions—especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity.

    Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

    1) Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

    2) They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

    3) They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but they know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.

    In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the up-surge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage when it has failed.”

    – Excerpted from Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism, chapter six.

    https://www.quora.com/What-reservations-do-you-have-about-liberal-principles

  • How Does A Police Officer Determine If A Woman Is Lying?

    It’s actually pretty simple. They try to figure out who tells the first lie, or provides the least believable explanation.

    It is VERY easy to tell when people are lying. If you spend time at it, it’s patently obvious. The problem is, most of the time, everyone is lying.   Which is why you shouldn’t bother to lie to police. Just remain mute and let them do their thing, no matter what they say. If you must say anthing at all, then the only advice you can give anyone is to make sure that you are very clear what it is that the policeman is asking you.  Because every word you use is not evidence as you intend it, but evidence as the officer iterprets it.  

    If you say nothing other than your name and address, the worst that will happen is that you will ride in a car, go through some process, and come home the next morning a little tired. It is fear of this process that causes people to try to lie their way out of something.

    Most importantly, the police don’t try to solve crimes. They try to find reasons to arrest people, so that they can separate them, so that there isn’t any greater conflict. The only reason they odn’t arrest people is when it’s too much work to do the paper, and they’re afraid that you might spend time and money criticizing them.  But you should never even dream that the police are there to make good judgements or solve crimes.  They exist to make arrests and let the court make judgements.

    If there is a risk that their careers will be affected by a decision then they will be hostile and basically find every possible charge that they can dream up, and let the court system figure it out later.  This is their only defense against charges of impropriety or poor judgement.

    You are never in a debate or argument with a policeman. You are being interrogated, and they are trying to either catch you in a lie or make you lie and if they find that they will assume everything is your fault.

    If you are a man and the complainant is a woman, unless you can show blood it is your fault, always, everywhere. Women are never accountable for their words or actions unless they create visible harm to you.  The general assumption is that they are fairly harmless.  The general assumption is that men are dangerous.

    These are not irrational, or empirically false assumptions.

    That said, if the woman has a seedy past and the man has any assets at all it’s an even bet she’s lying. Statistically speaking we have pretty good numbers now on false rape and assault accusations.  It’s a substantial number, and I don’t keep up with it, but it’s not less than 5% and I think the 10% number looks believable.  

    The best advice is to stay away from easy women, women who are drunk, or who use drugs.

    I know…. I know….  That’s like telling moms not to shop at Walmart for the discounts, but that’s just reality.  Women don’t come at a discount.  The cost is always higher than the savings. 🙂  Its reproductive math.  It has to be that way. 🙂

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-police-officer-determine-if-a-woman-is-lying

  • Why Should I Provide My Knowledge To Quora For Free?

    Because you don’t know it’s knowledge until it’s tested.  And the only way to test knowledge (arguments) is to make them. Just like the only way to test experiments is to run them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-provide-my-knowledge-to-Quora-for-free

  • Has Anyone Benefited Tangibly From Answering On Quora, And If So By What Terms Were These Benefits?

    I think this is an interesting question.  
    1) Entertainment of yourself and others.
    2) Promotion of yourself, others, or certain ideas.
    3) Assistance of others (which is theoretically the purpose)
    4) Experimentation and refinement of your arguments.

    (1) is obvious but isn’t very valuable to anyone.
    (2) is probably a misuse (free riding) and tedious.
    (3) is the target idea but the question is what percentage of answers meet this criteria (not many).
    (4) is the scientific approach to debate structures.

    Personally, how I benefit from Quora is that it provides a large body of questions that are asked by people who are curious, and arguments by a large numbrer of people with erroneous knowledge, and as such, it’s a great place to learn how to talk or write about a subject if you don’t really understand how ‘ordinary people’ think of a topic.  The fact that answers are often bad, is actually useful because it provides insight into why people arrive at poor conclusions.  Because it is one thing to state a solution, and another to provide a route to it, that corrects the erroneous assumptions of others.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-benefited-tangibly-from-answering-on-Quora-and-if-so-by-what-terms-were-these-benefits

  • What Is The Best Way To Learn Monetary Policy?

    I will give you a little help. There is nothing much to it.

    It is cursory in textbooks for a reason. It’s just no more complicated than maintaing a supply of money that’s high enough that interests rates are low enough, the people spend to consume and spend to invest. And not too high that you cause inflation and destroy everyone’s savings.  That’s it.  That’s all there is.  Lastly, it certainly appears that no matter what governments’ do, when you add money to an economy, you distort the information carried to everyone in the data we call prices. This distortion of information appears to exacerbate the boom and bust cycle. So no matter what you do there are consequences either way.

    The complicated part of monetary policy is that money moves through the economy through a very flexible and very complex network, and every single person in that network has some incentive or other.

    So what there is to understand about monetary policy, isn’t the monetary policy itself, which is really quite simple. It’s how money moves through the network of central banks, investment manks, common banks, investors, business, and consumers. 

    If you start with the treasury issuing notes, and follow the money through to the consumer, then back into the banking system, you will understand it. You will only really understand it though, when you understand human nature pretty objectively.

    If you can overlook the ideology the best book that you will find is Rothbard’s The Mystery of Banking.  That’s how it works.

    Monetary policy is not a problem of macro.  Macro is very simple.  The problem is the multiplicity of routes that money moves through an economy, and the various incentives people have, when all of them possess only fragmentary information and understanding of the entire process. 

    The truth is that we are still in the process of discovering how that process works. Very few people know. And when people think they know, in the end it turns out that they’re often wrong.

    Most of the nonsense you see on television or read in the news is just that.  If you read Mandelbrot, you’ll understand that most activity is noise, not signal, and almost all noise is speculation as changes in the discount rate propagate through the economy.  If you study economics long enough, or read Taleb for that matter, you’ll realize it’s a lot of noise.  Almost all economic activity is a function of demographics, property rights, and education – all of which are amplified by credit.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-way-to-learn-monetary-policy