Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb (re: violence) I’d like to add an economist’s point of vie

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb

    (re: violence)

    I’d like to add an economist’s point of view: that the use of the term ‘violence’ is obscurant. (In my lexicon that is equivalent to pseudoscientific).

    Humans engage in a vast spectrum of parasitism whenever possible, and in production only when easy or necessary. Parasitism can be performed by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by obscurantism, imposed cost by indirection, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy to extort, by normative conversion, by immigration, asymmetric reproduction, conquest, and genocide.

    Conversely, mutually beneficial, productive, warrantied, fully informed, cooperation by voluntary exchange is, by contrast, a very narrow field of human activity in a vast spectrum of parasitism.

    Over the centuries we have increasingly abstracted assets (that which we seek to consume by parasitism), from the physical to, fragments of a value chain, to mere numerical promises (accounts), so that violence is almost useless as a means of obtaining wealth. However, the volume of predation and parasitism performed by violence, is currently performed by various forms of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-moral fraud instead of violence.

    But the parasitism remains.

    Humans are open to coercion by only three technologies: Gossip(religion and morality), remuneration(trade, credit, tax and redistribution), or threat of violence(law,military). Although at any times some people specialize in some axis of coercion (public intellectuals:gossip, government:violence, corporations:purchasing influence.)

    So if we have exchanged parasitism via violence, for parasitism via pseudoscientific fraud (which is one aspect of what I believe you are investigating), then the form of parasitism has changed, but not the parasitism itself.

    We might argue that some form of parasitic equilibrium is actually some sort of Pareto optimum. But that is very different from saying that parasitism no longer exists, or has decreased.

    So as far as I am able to tell, net change in parasitism is zero, or perhaps as some people argue, we have seen a dramatic increase. It is just that we have created sufficient technology that our parasitism by pseudoscience does not injure production as much as parasitism by violence does.

    Furthermore, all the great syntopical historians have, as far as I know, come to the same conclusion: that since 1945, the Pax Americana is only paralleled by the Pax Romana.

    I argue rather frequently (as do many historians) that all economic measures since 1600 are little more than the reflection of the distribution of consumer capitalism, accounting, and rule of law around the world at the point of British gunships.

    So to address violence instead of parasitism, is to blind one’s self to the rest of the spectrum of human criminality in order to congratulate one’s self on having invented a more effective form of crime.

    Affections.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 11:20:00 UTC

  • “Honda Aircraft CEO Michimasa Fujino, who has worked on the project for decades.

    ——-“Honda Aircraft CEO Michimasa Fujino, who has worked on the project for decades. “This airplane is my art piece,” he said in an interview.”——-

    A man who speaks aristocratic language.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 10:53:00 UTC

  • needs academic freedom when you have power

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/who-needs-academic-freedom-anymore-when-you-have-power/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=who-needs-academic-freedom-anymore-when-you-have-powerWho needs academic freedom when you have power

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 09:41:00 UTC

  • IDIOT OR GENETICALLY DEFECTIVE? He is a typical product of defective north sea g

    http://www.thelocal.se/20150513/hans-rosling-im-an-ambassador-for-the-world-in-sweden-connectsweden-tlccuDISHONEST, IDIOT OR GENETICALLY DEFECTIVE?

    He is a typical product of defective north sea genes, which were very useful in the ice age and thereafter, but where status seeking by pathological altruism is suicidal when competing with more aggressive and parasitic tribes.

    2 mins · Like

    Curt Doolittle To call the man an idiot is to call a woman with solipsistic feminine intuition an idiot. We justify our genetic biases all life long. He is justifying his. He is no more wise or informed than his genes allow him to be. So, he’s just wrong, and morally blind because he is genetically predisposed to moral blindness.

    All his world travels manage to do is demonstrate the ferocity of his genetic bias, in the face of overwhelming evidence against his bias.

    He’s a poster child for the reason democracy is impossible.

    #propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 07:22:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/05/18/achieving-democracy-with-technological-change-by-bradley-a-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-20595Read

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 06:19:00 UTC

  • THE MOST PROFOUND 1000 WORDS ON POLITICS AT THE MOMENT (worth repeating) All, Th

    THE MOST PROFOUND 1000 WORDS ON POLITICS AT THE MOMENT

    (worth repeating)

    All,

    Thank you for asking me to respond. I didn’t respond on LessWrong’s site because (honestly) I thought it was a rather pointless argument. But I’ll convert it from signaling (the author’s criticism and somewhat humorous demonstration of signaling), from moral to scientific language and I think it will be clearer:

    1) All radicals do not fit into the center of the distribution – the statement is tautological, not insightful.

    2) We all signal, and signaling is necessary for evolutionary reproductive selection.

    3) The presumption of not fitting into some locus of the median of the distribution is a democratic one – that we are equal rather than (as I argue) we constitute a division of cognitive labor: perception, evaluation, knowledge and advocacy. (humans divide cognition more so than other creatures because we specialize in cognition.)

    4) Our theories do tend to justify our social positions (signaling) but then, we would not have information necessary to theorize about any other set of interests, now would we?

    5) The origin of theories is irrelevant (justification is false), and therefore the question of a theory produced by any subset of a polity can be judged by only criticism – its irrelevant who comes up with a theory.

    The vast difference between pseudoscience and science in ethics, law, politics, and economics is captured those few words.

    Now, to state the positive version: the solution to the fallacy of the enlightenment hypothesis of equality of ability, interest, and value is captured in these additional points:

    6) economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    7) central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and transaction costs. Once centralized they can be incrementally eliminated. If and only if an institutional means of following rules can be used to replace personal judgement.

    8) The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    9) Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    10) We cannot expect or demand truth from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    11) We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    12) Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group. The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons. The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption. But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons. Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time. Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well. The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot. Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.

    (This is also probably the most profound 1000 words on politics that you will be able to find at this moment in time)

    #propertarianism

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 05:45:00 UTC

  • THE COST OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM (worth repeating) Propertarianism is like l

    THE COST OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM

    (worth repeating)

    Propertarianism is like learning any other formal logic. It is non-trivial. But what you get from the effort of learning it is explanatory power. Unfortunately I am a much better philosopher than a teacher, or it would be easier to understand. Also, I’m just finishing it, so you’re trying to learn mid-stream. If I finished the book and you could go back to it for reference, then life would be easier for you (and me.)

    #propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 05:35:00 UTC

  • SKASKIW ON GENDER RATIO THEORY Gender ratio theory: Societies seem to work bette

    http://aeon.co/magazine/society/how-rising-inequality-is-changing-marriage/ROMAN SKASKIW ON GENDER RATIO THEORY

    Gender ratio theory: http://aeon.co/…/how-rising-inequality-is-changing-marriage/

    Societies seem to work better (and more people get married) when men outnumber and have to compete for women. This seems to have a lot of explanatory power:

    -the sustained marriage rate of top 10% income earning women

    -university hook up culture

    -communities with high incarceration

    -even stories about ancient Spartan vs Athenian women.

    #hbd_chick #propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 05:20:00 UTC

  • OMG. AI. It’s not how we associate ownership to things. It’s how we associate pr

    OMG. AI.

    It’s not how we associate ownership to things. It’s how we associate properties to that which is owned.

    That’s the answer.

    RE: David Trowbridge + Martin Fowler

    I knew it in 2006 when you told me about the manifolds. But I had it backwards like everyone else.

    That’s it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 05:18:00 UTC

  • ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR AND NUCLEAR FAMILIES (worth repeating) It may have required the

    ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR AND NUCLEAR FAMILIES

    (worth repeating)

    It may have required the ANF and NF to EVOLVE liberty outside of the aristocracy, but once we understand that all rights are expressible as property rights, because all criminal, ethical, moral and conspiratorial prohibitions are reducible to property rights, we can use the single law of property whether we would have evolved(invented) it or not.

    Once you have invented something you are not bound by the path of invention.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 04:23:00 UTC