Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM I think the debate in classic

    THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

    I think the debate in classical liberalism is unfortunately (as Hayek tried to inform us) too much on the structure of government (the market for the production of commons), and too little on the rule of law (the evolution of means of suppression of parasitism) and distracted by the artificial (false) demarcation in property rights, and totally absent of the debate on the problem of suppressing immorality (the total suppression of involuntary transfer, and the forcible removal of all alternatives to market participation).

    Humans are want to reduce debates to single issues. Unfortunately, most issues are determined by equilibria not states. In the case of politics, the rule of law as the means of suppressing immorality and forcing people into productive activity is one topic. And the construction of commons that cannot be produced by the incentives of the market is something else.

    As far as I know the solution to the rule of law is known. Two problems remain: (a) the problem with the production of commons – primarily because of the problem of free riding among tax payers; and because of the problem of bureaucratic incentives among administrators. And (b) because of the problem of the declining presence of means of participating in the market (employment) – a problem which we anticipate increasing.

    The problem (b) is solvable by shareholdership and dividends, and loss of shareholdership in the event that one violates the shareholder agreement.

    The problem (a) is solvable by eliminating monopoly decision making under majority rule, and instead, providing the individual commitment of funds. In other words, independent of whether we rely on (i)elected representatives, (ii)representatives chosen by lot (juries), or (iii)direct participation, if the total revenues were divided by the number of participants in i,ii,or iii, then we voted our dollars, we could pursue policies (commons) that interested us, and not pursue commons that did not. And competition would provide answers that reason cannot. There is no need for majority rule.

    However, that is a prescription for the production of material commons, not of normative commons. And it is necessary to redistribute (de-centralize) the production of normative commons (rules of public behavior). Again, competition will drive adoption. And there is no value in normative tyranny.

    This model allows us to federate insurance (universal insurance), cooperate in the production of material and economic commons, and to choose to compete in the production of normative commons.

    As such the classical liberal method expanded such that the government remains a market for the production of cooperation on commons and mutual insurance, rather than a means of the projection of monopoly.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:08:00 UTC

  • GHANA AS A INSTRUCTION ON THE VIRTUES OF UNIVERSAL LOVE I have learned more that

    GHANA AS A INSTRUCTION ON THE VIRTUES OF UNIVERSAL LOVE

    I have learned more that is more important to my understanding of the virtues of christianity by listening in on the debate among the Ghanians than I have from any other formal research. If I compare that to the debate in Islamic, Russian and Sinic societies, it is light years of difference. The debate is hindu society is interesting, and I see them beginning to catch up in small clusters. And I expect it to spread virulently in the educated classes. But there is a great difference between the vast size and power of the hindu empire, and the challenges facing Ghanians and Ukrainians who have vast evils on their borders, and institutionalized corruption that they must struggle against.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:48:00 UTC

  • IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CO

    IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

    (important sketch)(capitalism)(efficient uses of capital)

    There are many more empirically efficient allocations of capital at any given moment. But there are not necessarily more efficient allocations of incentives. Since the voluntary organization of production requires an efficient allocation of incentives, then the maximum efficiency of any allocation of capital, is one in which we produce the widest distribution of incentives. The reason being that the construction of the voluntary organization of production that we call capitalism is not (as libertarians fantasize) natural behavior or rational choice, whatsoever. People must be provided with incentives to voluntarily organize production.

    This means that the entire cosmopolitan fantasy promoted by Rothbard on one side, and Soros on the other, and other advocates of immorality like Walter Block, is a justification. The most efficient use of capital is that in which the population is incentivized to construct and preserve the foundation of the economy: the voluntary organization of production.

    And so we seek a Pareto optimum between incentives to produce the voluntary order, and the efficiency of capital allocation in production within that voluntary order. And any increase in capital efficiency that produces a decrease in incentives is actually destructive.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to demonstrate that if people cannot join the market for production, that we must compensate them for the work of constructing the voluntary organization of production that makes the high productivity, high trust, high velocity and low friction under the voluntary organization of production possible.

    From this perspective, most rothbardian thought, like most cosmopolitan thought, is merely an elaborate obscurant art of fraud for the purpose of declaring without cost, that which is hugely expensive: high trust, high velocity, and the voluntary organization of production.

    If you understand this you will abandon libertinism (cosmopolitan libertarianism) and revert to aristocratic libertarianism (classical liberalism). Because we had it right. We did. But the American Neo-Puritans put a dent in it, women put a hole in it, and Jews and Catholics made a fissure out of it.

    Thankfully it isn’t impossible to fix: truth telling is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:38:00 UTC

  • EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS (worth repeating) Before I ha

    EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS

    (worth repeating)

    Before I had my personal moral reformation, and rejection of what I learned in university, I considered going into the private espionage business. (Such business does exist, and is totally above board when it is used to uncover illegal activity. You can hire security firms that have specialized groups that perform the work legally.)

    After working with the Koenigs, the Golubs and the Seminoffs (all descendants of Russian jews) and filing racketeering charges against the Koenigs, turning the Golobs in to the justice department for wire fraud, and turning Seminoff in for Tax Evasion and Fraud, it seemed like I was making a career out of stumbling into illegal financial activity, and I might as well take the moral high ground.

    Instead, I did the opposite, which was to search for only moral people to work with, and avoid the scumbags entirely. It was a good personal decision. But the awareness of how damned evil some people were never left me. And I always felt that my moral business partners were naive idiots that I had to make sure didn’t hurt themselves or me. (I failed by the way.)

    I used to tell these stories to everyone. I don’t anymore. I prefer to focus on the positives. But there is a whole world of shitty people out there using every financial and legal scam in the book to hook crook and steal from others. And you would be surprised that that list includes some of the most prestigious legal firms in america with whom I have sat on boards, and listened to explicit instructions on how to get away with theft.

    My ancestors were puritans and I suspect that it’s a genetic bias. But I have come to detest the institutionalization of immorality imposed on my people during the 20th century.

    And so I am fighting back at grand scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION Either laws completely and totally limit

    RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION

    Either laws completely and totally limit our executives in all circumstances other than defensive warfare, or there is no rule of law. Administrative ‘law’ is an impossibility. We can issue administrative commands, and by deceit, claim that they hold the same properties as law. We can issue regulatory commands, and by deceit claim that they hold the same properties as law. But they always have been convenient deceits – to grant to arbitrary human wish that which is necessary law of cooperation.

    Law is discovered, and recorded by neutral jurists, no less scientifically than physical laws, biological processes, and mechanical operations: as we invent new means of involuntary transfer – from the most simplistic and obvious violence theft and fraud, to the most indirect and obscure socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking and free riding – we register this new means of involuntary transfer (just as we register patents) as new prohibitions on involuntary transfer: law.

    We can choose to construct contracts for the production of commons, using government, and we can resolve those contracts in courts, using laws. But beyond the voluntary production of commons, all else is usurpation and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 01:45:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://t.co/8tv9Z0GtKuObvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 17:47:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE ASK ME WHY I THINK THE POLITICAL WORLD IS FRAGILE

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/scattered-power-outages-reported-across-dc-area/2015/04/07/8f4e8b84-dd49-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.htmlAND PEOPLE ASK ME WHY I THINK THE POLITICAL WORLD IS FRAGILE.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 15:05:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW AND THE FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENCY. All, This problem – of the Presid

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/04/06/after-the-rule-of-law-by-john-samples/THE RULE OF LAW AND THE FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

    All,

    This problem – of the Presidency – is well studied in the literature. The general argument, and as far as I know, the general consensus, is that the presidency is a failed experiment. That had Washington accepted monarchy with veto power, and had we as a consequence adopted the British (English) system of prime minister, that we would find more consistent long term policy and less politicization of the bureaucracy.

    People overwhelmingly prefer monarchs – familial, tribal, cultural, and spiritual leaders and families that symbolize the populace. Curiously, countries with Monarchs outperform countries without. So the question of whether presidents abuse rule of law is a misplaced one: of course they have. The presidency was a mistake. Very few men in power respect rule of law. Their vanity, pride, idealism, legacies, entourage, pressures, dependents, and the people that put them into power guarantee it.

    RULE OF LAW

    As for rule of law, as far as I know, that lasted until Lincoln at best. And ended with FDR. It’s just taken this long to transform from a president who abused it but the public and academy wouldn’t tolerate (Nixon) to a president who can’t conceive of it (Obama), an academy the actively undermines it, and a public that is ignorant of and dismisses it.

    Either laws completely and totally limit our executives in all circumstances other than defensive warfare, or there is no rule of law. Administrative ‘law’ is an impossibility. We can issue administrative commands, and by deceit, claim that they hold the same properties as law. We can issue regulatory commands, and by deceit claim that they hold the same properties as law. But they always have been convenient deceits – to grant to arbitrary human wish that which is necessary law of cooperation.

    Law is discovered, and recorded by neutral jurists, no less scientifically than physical laws, biological processes, and mechanical operations: as we invent new means of involuntary transfer – from the most simplistic and obvious violence theft and fraud, to the most indirect and obscure socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking and free riding – we register this new means of involuntary transfer (just as we register patents) as new prohibitions on involuntary transfer: law.

    We can choose to construct contracts for the production of commons, using government, and we can resolve those contracts in courts, using laws. But beyond the voluntary production of commons, all else is usurpation and command.

    LIE BY ANALOGY

    One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to lie using operational language. That is why science requires operational definitions. Whenever someone makes a statement about ‘law’ and rule of law, it is helpful to ascertain whether the person is engaged in deceit, by questioning whether he is talking about law, contractual provision, command, or permission.

    Humans evolved cooperation from non-cooperation because it was an unequalled multiplier in the production of calories, and concentration of calories in expensive offspring. But as soon as one develops cooperation one invites free riding (parasitism). The prevention of free riding is necessary for the preservation of cooperation – otherwise cooperation is irrational and counter-productive. Without the prevention of free riding, and without aggressive punishment of free riders – from the lazy family member to the aggressive alpha, to the predatory competitor – people cease to cooperate, and must cease to cooperate. And productivity declines accordingly. And trust declines accordingly. And economic velocity declines accordingly. And violence theft, fraud, free riding, and rent seeking and corruption and conspiracy – including political conspiracy at scale, and bureaucratic conspiracy of common malincentives expand to the point of equilibrium.

    We either possess rule of law: constraint, without exception, on discretion, or conversely, independence from discretion in matters of involuntary transfer – or we do not.

    THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS RULE OF LAW

    So on two questions, the presidency and rule of law, it is of little sense throwing money into a hole in the water, and of equally little sense debating the wishful virtues of men. Plato caused us enough harm doing so for one civilization to bear. We will not solve this problem or any other without restoring rule of law: there is no reason that the public is prohibited from universal standing for suing individuals in the government. The voting booth fails outside of the neighborhood of the voters.

    If we restore rule of law we can keep the president, even if the choice between president or prime minister is a matter of the quality of long term policy. But without rule of law, it matters little whether we have president or prime minister – because we merely obey commands.

    Without rule of law we are not provided with the means of conflict resolution for the purpose of developing cooperation by the organized and incremental prevention and prosecution of free riding. Instead, we are subjects, commanded, by an elaborate, obscurantist, operatic, ceremonial means of justifying those commands. And nothing else.

    And hence, there exists no incentive to cooperate. There is only incentive to obey commands offset by incentives to disobey commands. Liberty is the effect of rule of law. And rule of law cannot exist when courts cannot redress grievances.

    Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 13:35:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING Our weights are different not

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0SEX DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0

    Our weights are different not our processes.

    – Female value in harmony, consensus, compliance or submission. The female reproductive strategy. Female reproductive strategy is not to draw ire, and to ensure the success of her offspring at all costs – regardless of merit.

    vs

    – Male value in change, leadership, differential advantage or dominance. The male reproductive strategy. Male intuition is to protect and improve the tribe – the brother’s ability to keep and pair off with females – by consciousness of merit.

    We measure and value different outcomes. We do not apply different reasoning. This is why the regions of the brain differ..

    Propertarianism provides greater explanatory power that psychology.

    Cheers.

    (HT Roman Skaskiw)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 12:40:00 UTC

  • OF THE MOST IMPORTANT NEW DISCUSSIONS IN ECONOMICS. I gave a talk to Ascentium s

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/04/firms-are-56-dark-matter.htmlONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT NEW DISCUSSIONS IN ECONOMICS.

    I gave a talk to Ascentium staff about this trend and how it would effect marketing and advertising in 2009. But it was too far over the horizon for the audience.

    What does this mean for policy. What does it mean for accounting and reporting. What does it mean for brands?

    I was more interested in what it meant for executives and finance and reporting than brands.

    And I think brand people work in much shorter time horizons. So there isn’t advantage to being an early mover as much as moving once the old habits stop working.

    But for the c-level, we work on long horizons. And we must be aware that the government trails us.

    So developing internal management, information and accounting systems that adhere to policy is a death trap.

    Instead we must separate external financial accounting from management accounting. And we should account for and measure our “dark matter”.

    That returns us to measuring brand value.

    As these numbers indicate, that is your MOST IMPORTANT ASSET.

    Culture is you next most important asset.

    Capital will remain free through 2025 at the earliest and under deflationary pressure.

    So IP, culture that attracts talent, and brand loyalty are your only material assets.

    Let the government tax you as if we still lived in the age of telegraph and sail.

    But measure culture, build talent, and measure customer loyalty. And brand value.

    Business norms like cultural norms and policy adapt more slowly than circumstances change.

    Overcoming Bias : Firms Now 5/6 Dark Matter!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 06:21:00 UTC