Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • IMPORTANT IDEA OF THE DAY: TRUTH IS EXPENSIVE, BUT THE RETURNS WARRANT IT, AND M

    IMPORTANT IDEA OF THE DAY: TRUTH IS EXPENSIVE, BUT THE RETURNS WARRANT IT, AND MORALITY DEMANDS IT.

    It was very expensive to create settlements by prohibiting predation by the development of armies and professional warriors. But we obtained the ability to accumulate capital, and to create a division of labor.

    It was very expensive to create property rights by prohibiting parasitism through law and indoctrination. But we obtained the ability to create a market, money, and prices.

    It was very expensive to create literacy by creating printing and education. But we dramatically expanded human productivity, and demonstrated intelligence.

    It was very expensive to create scientific thought through a century of education. But we dramatically reduced transaction costs, increased human productivity, and increased demonstrated intelligence.

    It will be equally expensive to create TRUTHFULNESS – or, perhaps, restore truthfulness to the scientific era. And the gains will will obtain from truthfulness will be equal to if not surpass the gains we obtained from literacy.

    A truthful world is as hard for us to imagine as a scientific world was for religio-rationalists to imagine, as it was for the pre-literate to imagine the literate, as it was for the barbaric to imagine the urban.

    That something is an expensive commons to produce is not a criticism. It is a question of returns.

    Mankind must eventually make this transition. We can do it now, and free ourselves of the threats to our civilization – the civilization that invented truth. Or we can experience a peak beyond which we fail to pass, as did the Greeks and the Romans. As did the Byzantines and Persians. As did the Austrians and Spanish. As did the French and German. And let our civilization pass from this earth – disappearing, and becoming subject to peoples more barbaric than we.

    I am willing to die to save my civilization, my race, my people from another dark age, and to instead transform mankind from the merely rational and scientific to the truthful stage of evolution.

    This isn’t a cost I expect everyone to agree to bear. But it is a cost I know many of us are willing to bear – and to bear gladly and heroically.

    We can purge all forms of lies from this earth.

    And in doing so, transform man into gods.

    For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kyiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 06:52:00 UTC

  • MYTH OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE MOST LIKELY GENDER TO LIE TO A

    MYTH OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE MOST LIKELY GENDER TO LIE TO A WOMAN, IS ANOTHER WOMAN.

    —“Very inspiring and encouraging for me, after reading how rarely angels and venture capitalists fund women founders. There’s hope for me, even if the suits are sexist! Fighting for social justice online: how can we use the Internet to make the world a better place? “— Charlotte A.

    Statistics are Statistics. Data is Data. Fact is Fact.

    Few women will pay the dear price in time, stress, health, family, friends, risk, and life demanded of high growth businesses. Few women endear the kind of loyalty required of risk taking-talent marginally superior enough to crate a marginally superior product or service. Few women choose to operate in markets that are competitive, technical, novel, with business models that are marginally different. Few women argue entirely empirically and entirely from incentives. Few women can make a man trust them with large amounts of money that he has been entrusted with by others. Women do, but few women do.

    So, it is not a matter of justice but of empirical evidence. And arguing otherwise merely disqualifies you from receiving investment. People with money and responsibility that they have been entrusted with by others to make objective decisions cannot betray that trust by preferring to invest in your business idea versus the business idea of someone who does not make those same mistaken assertions.

    And I say this only because whomever has given you an education has done you a tragic disservice. We do not invest in religious doctrine. Investment is a science of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from business hypotheses, leaving only survivable business models as candidates. And betting upon people who demonstrate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception (including self-deception), is unscientific.

    Investors do not bet on any form of mysticism — including the myth of social justice. (A term which both Socrates and Hayek have demonstrated, does itself not survive critical and empirical analysis.) You should be angry at the people who lied to you. Not the people who will not perpetuate the lies that were told to you. In investments, everyone has one color, creed, and gender: money. And investment is more color, creed and gender blind than Lady Justice ever dreamed of being.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 06:32:00 UTC

  • collapses libertinism’s open borders

    https://www.vdare.com/posts/muslim-invasion-collapses-libertarianisms-open-borders-ideal-and-possibly-europeInvasion collapses libertinism’s open borders.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 04:23:00 UTC

  • CAPITALISM AND THE SWORD Capitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because

    CAPITALISM AND THE SWORD

    Capitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because liberty was constructed by the martial class. Period. Violence creates property. Property creates prosperity. Prosperity makes charity possible.

    WE ARE THE FOUNDATION. ALL OF CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS

    We either form a wall and do not break, or there is not capitalism, prosperity and charity.

    VIOLENCE IS THE FIRST WEALTH WE INVEST.

    CAPITALISM IS ONE OF THE INVESTMENTS WE CAN MAKE.

    REDISTRIBUTION IS A LUXURY WE CAN CHOOSE TO AFFORD.

    It’s time to water the tree of liberty with a little blood.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 09:58:00 UTC

  • Fallacy of Free Trade Absolutism (Libertarian Contrarianism of the Day)

    https://t.co/CP349kHro1The Fallacy of Free Trade Absolutism (Libertarian Contrarianism of the Day)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 09:32:00 UTC

  • ON THE FALLACY OF FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM (very important piece) (this will ruffle

    ON THE FALLACY OF FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM

    (very important piece) (this will ruffle some feathers)

    The three means of coercion can be used for good or ill.

    1) Violence can be used to create property rights and prosperity or it can be used to conduct parasitism predation and destruction.

    2) Gossip can be used to reward contributors to the commons with opportunity for cooperation and mates, or it can be used to lie, cheat, deceive, rally, shame, and justify parasitism, or instill violence.

    3) Trade can be used to increase prosperity for all by accumulating genetic, knowledge, physical and institutional capital, or to destroy the either the producer’s or the consumer’s economy by causing the depreciation of genetic, knowledge, physical, and institutional capital.

    Trade is no more an INTRINSIC good, than is violence or gossip.

    That is the end of it. Trade is nor more a good than violence or gossip. The only determinant of the morality or immorality of trade is whether capital is accumulated or destroyed in the process of production, distribution, trade and consumption, and whether the transfers were voluntary.

    ***This is what I call the requirement for “full accounting” in any truthful (moral) argument. Without full accounting someone is undoubtably lying. General rules expressed without limits are used as means of suggestion by which to deceive the altruistic mind. Free Trade is as much a folly as Autarky. Free Trade is yet another cosmopolitanism by which to rely on suggestion in order to conduct parasitism.***

    This argument is finished. Cosmopolitan Libertarian absolutism is finished. Libertine libertarianism is finished. It is a dead ideology. I have killed it – forever. And I have demonstrated as thoroughly as any man can, that the only possible liberty from which we obtain our prosperity is TRUTHFUL COOPERATION: The productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property-en-toto, free of imposition of costs by externality, wherein our statements survive tests of identity (non conflation), internal, consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, parsimony, limits, full accounting, and voluntary exchange.

    Children require virtue ethics, because they can but imitate. The young require rule ethics because they lack experience. The adult requires outcome ethics because otherwise he can use rules to obscure his frauds. Any ethical claim must hold to all THREE forms of ethic:

    a) virtue: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral

    b) rule: should every man obey this rule, the outcome would be moral.

    c) outcome: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral.

    It is not that one ethical method supersedes any other. It is that we can only expect the child to imitate, the young to obey rules, and the old to obey experience. As such we tolerate greater error from the child, than the young, and least from the experienced. It is not that any ethical method produces greater results. It is that each method requires making full use of the knowledge that each actor possesses, and that as long as he acts according to those principles, that we forgive him for his failures.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kyiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 09:30:00 UTC

  • I have lived overseas long enough now to intuit this kind of north american fare

    I have lived overseas long enough now to intuit this kind of north american fare as disgusting. Thankfully. (Ack)

    (referring to a disgusting fatty burger)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:37:00 UTC

  • ought to give you something profound to think about. 😉

    http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/662608637249110016/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=662608637249110016This ought to give you something profound to think about. 😉 https://t.co/g1BPBp0koD

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:33:00 UTC

  • OVERTURNING THE FALLACY OF FEMALE VS MALE COSTS OF REPRODUCTION (worth repeating

    OVERTURNING THE FALLACY OF FEMALE VS MALE COSTS OF REPRODUCTION

    (worth repeating)

    —**While incorrectly stated as a difference in *COST* of reproduction – since male deaths from production and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth, and male lifespans are shorter from accumulated injury and cellular damage – the genders differ not in cost but in the *CONTROL* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males from access, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**—

    —The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with female mates so that all brothers maintain incentives to preserve the group. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:31:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM ON RACE, CULTURE, RELIGION, GENDER, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL,

    PROPERTARIANISM ON RACE, CULTURE, RELIGION, GENDER, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL, ‘ISMS’

    (important piece)

    We vary in our reproductive, productive, and defensive value to one another: our reproductive, productive, and defensive fitness. One’s reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability (fitness) determines one’s status: reproductive desirability, productive desirability, and value as a source of behavior we can imitation and learn from.

    Status determines the opportunities one can select from exploiting, whether they be reproductive or productive. Others seek to imitate those with status, and adopt their thoughts and behaviors. Others seek to associate with those with status in order to obtain access to the same opportunities. This produces collective attraction to opportunities – our ‘flocking’ behavior evident in our politics and economics – which demonstrates our cooperation by shared interests (or conspiracy of interests). And this flocking is observable in human societies at every level: economic, reproductive, social, religious, political, and military.

    While human reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability exists across a spectrum – a distribution from least to most – we tend to group people into ‘classes’ of similar interests, of which the very highest and very lowest are outliers and irrelevant; leaving us with upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, upper lower, middle lower, and lower classes we call social and reproductive classes, but which result, because of desirability for reproduction and production, into economic classes as well – except with greater variation given our modern industrial, medical, and information economies.

    **While incorrectly stated as a difference in cost of reproduction (since male deaths from production(hunting) and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth) – the genders differ not in cost but in the *control* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**

    The female, socialist, dysgenic (r-selection) and lower class control strategy is to use shaming in order to deprive others of opportunity of cooperation with them. The male, aristocratic, eugenic and upper class control strategy is to use force to prevent parasitism and to preserve cooperation(k-selection), while spreading his genes to the best females possible. The male, libertarian and eugenic, middle class control strategy (exchange selection/productivity selection), is to organize production by voluntary cooperation and produce rewards for everyone while spreading his genes to the best females possible. Yet in history it appears that 70% of females manage to reproduce but only 30% of males. Meaning we only achieved compromise through the institution of marriage, and thereby pacifying males, and enabling females to reproduce in greater numbers.

    The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with mates so that all brothers maintain incentives. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.

    We divide the work of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy into a temporal spectrum of short term consumption, medium term production, and long term accumulation. Our perceptions are not equal. Our evaluations of our perceptions are not equal. Our knowledge is incomplete. It is only through cooperation: voluntary exchange – that we know what is truly beneficial, insufficiently beneficial, or detrimental. Just as we can only act in large numbers through the market for voluntary exchange of goods and services, and the resulting information and incentives provided by prices.

    We persuade people into cooperation, and violate existing cooperation by only three methods: 1) force or protection from force, 2) remuneration (voluntary exchange), 3) gossip, shaming and rallying (ostracization from opportunity). Only the second – voluntary exchange – is non-coercive. And only non-coercive persuasion by voluntary exchange is in fact cooperation rather than threat of deprivation or harm.

    So our options reflect our genders and abilities. And we have evolved class and gender adaptations such that our moral compasses, our moral intuitions, and our moral preferences and beliefs reflect these biases. The female socialist, male libertarian, and male aristocratic reflect these political biases.

    But groups have only three strategies to choose from, and only positive and negative uses of each strategy:

    – Predation and parasitism, VS Law of non-predation

    – Cheating and Scheming, VS Productive Cooperation

    – Rallying and shaming for discounts, VS Rallying and Lauding Producers.

    Different groups demonstrate different evolutionary strategies

    – Genders employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Classes employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Cultures employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Races employ different evolutionary strategies.

    Groups of every scale employ different evolutionary strategies.

    But in the final analysis, inferior groups adopt immoral, dysgenic, and parasitic equalitarian strategies including predation, parasitism, cheating and scheming, rallying and shaming; and superior groups adopt moral, eugenic, and productive meritocratic strategies.

    We see this worldwide with the aristocratic protestant ethic on one end of the spectrum, the Russians and Chinese in the middle, and the gypsies and Islamists on the other end of the spectrum. In other words: higher trust more eugenic more productive people against lower trust, less productive people.

    The ancient and medieval west weaponized the civic commons.

    The neo-puritans weaponized pseudoscience and media.

    Islam has weaponized reproduction and religion

    China weaponized the state/military/bureaucracy

    Russia has weaponized state/military/media

    The gypsies have weaponized small scale crime.

    If we make a long list of peoples throughout history. and it is most often led by a combination of local advantage in production that enables military and political expansion, which either can increase or decrease parasitism – increase or decrease morality. It is just as rational for westerners to advocate meritocracy as it is for Chinese to advocate authority, and Islamists mysticism.

    But rationality does not tell us anything about morality. Morality is objective. Some groups are more objectively moral than others. Some strategies more moral than others. In the long term the aristocracy desires to transform man into gods. In the short term the least of us struggle to survive.

    But since neither can have his utopia, the only possible means of achieving both survival and transformation of man, is cooperation by voluntary exchange, and to reward those in the lower classes for not creating perpetuating their damage to mankind.

    There is only one “ism” in my understanding of the world: and that is that some groups are inferior and some superior, but it is an act of discounting or premium to ask the weak to suffer for the strong, or the aristocracy limit achievement because of the weak. There are no free rides.

    The only moral cooperation we can engage in is voluntary exchange.

    And it benefits every group to pursue the improvement of the distribution of talents in their groups, even if it means diminution of their absolute numbers. Moreover, it is in the interests of the moral and productive to constrain, punish, and if necessary, kill, those who do not improve the morality of themselves and their kin.

    Man must pacify the universe to persist in it. To do that he must first pacify himself. And the history of man, if anything, is the history of pacification – not of violence, but of predation, parasitism, and free riding.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:24:00 UTC