Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN To some degree, we are confused: the scient

    TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN

    To some degree, we are confused: the scientists developed the method of truthful speech out of necessity AND out of a lack of malincentives. The problem that other disciplines face is that either the externalities produced are somewhat limited, such as the use of mathematical platonism, or the incentives to lie are greater – far greater – than any incentive to tell the truth: such as in politics, law, advertising, the academy in general, or for public intellectuals.

    So what we have done is created an asymmetry of incentives by our incorrect, inappropriate, and morally mistaken advocacy of free speech.

    It is not that we must possess free speech, it is that we are prohibited from bringing a verbal, written, and conceptual product to the market for the consumption of ideas, without requiring that we warranty that good, in an attempt to insure that we do not harm ourselves through excessive warranty.

    However the jury is in on this matter, and instead of spending two centuries defining truthful speech under the limits of law of warranty, we have spent two centuries learning how to improve our lies. And we have, as evidenced by the pseudoscientific efforts of the marxists, and pseudoscientists, and pseudo-rationalists, dramatically improved our ability to lie.

    But since the cause of this continuous improvement of the technology of lying is something we know, and we know how to fix, then there is little stopping us from fixing it.

    All we need to do is return to treating speech as a product and the commons as property, and one may not pollute the commons any more than one may pollute the land.

    It will take very little time, less than two generations, to teach people to speak the truth again.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:18:00 UTC

  • THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM Now what gets lost in my political rh

    THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM

    Now what gets lost in my political rhetoric at times is that my driving moral bias is **the prevention of conflict without incurring sacrifice**. In other words, by accident of a puritanical family with a lot of internal fighting between my rather spoiled martial upper-class alcoholic father, and my rather disciplined, humble, temperate, and poor catholic mother.

    The pacifist solution is to tolerate substantial losses in order to avoid conflict that has higher losses. And as long as you live poorly and reproduce vastly this strategy works. Conversely, for small numbers, who breed slowly, to live well, they must not tolerate sacrifice or parasitism, and must force productivity. Otherwise they must resort to predation. So this competitive strategy can be represented as a triangular compromise between population, prosperity, and the expense of either submission or prohibition. (Yes I should graph this out. But you know I am kind of overloaded at the moment so it will have to wait. Basically, something on the order of: x=population, y=technology, 00->XY demand is tolerance for parasitism, Y(n), X(n) curve is tolerance which should form an X with tolerance. )

    But so my moral disposition, my moral INTUITION turns out to be an involuntary advocacy for conflict reduction without parasitism.

    As such I see the world as a sort of donut,with the aristocracy from all cultures in the hole, and the classes radiating outward, with further difference from the center representing the degree of normative interdependence of people within a tribal group, and the

    Aristocracy is marginally indifferent the world around, if we mean, demonstrated ability in production, distribution and trade.

    So this means that bringing aristocracy together, and capital APART to people is just a matter of reducing the cost of capital enough, and allowing elites to accomplish this on the behalf of their own people without too much interference from one another.

    It is very costly and dangerous to bring lower classes tog ether, and it is very beneficial to bring aristocracy together. The cost of integrating people who require normative similarities, where those normative similarities reflect biological differences in ability and preference is simply too high for more than fractions of the population. However, the only reason to move people from low trust to high trust is the failure of local governments to construct rule of law sufficient that the people do not require relocation (hiring nobility, or moving to nobility), just as we cannot move capital to people because their upper classes have failed.

    Democracy is of no value whatsoever, since it merely means that we create nothing but negative international incentives. This is counter to common intuition and current mythos, but it is demonstrably true, and logically very difficult to counter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:03:00 UTC

  • THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSI

    THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSITIONS

    There are categories of problems you cannot solve within the academy. The academy is hostile to many of them. Just as the church was hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. Just as the state is hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. In the case of the church and the state, they have adopted the mantra of entrepreneurial class without grasping its limits: we must serve customers, however we may not produce externalities. Both academy and state, which possess international rather than regional scope seek the best customers, whereas church as local franchises sought the best deals on behalf of their investors (consumers).

    This contradiction of incentives was caused by the enlightenment fallacy of the island people (the British – my people) and is why they divorced from the german civilization.

    It was a very profitable means of suicide.

    We cannot look at the anglo value system as ‘good’, we can only look at the anglo empirical methods in philosophy, science, commerce, and law as good. The german method is false,but the values are ‘good’. The cosmopolitan values and method are bad and false.

    CULTURE………..STRATEGY……………..METHOD……..

    British………………False(Suicidal)…………True (ratio-empirical)

    German……………True(Optimum)…………False (rationalism)

    Jewish……………..False(Cancerous)……..False (pseudoscientific)

    The problem is that the germans, once conquered, adopted enough of the British strategy, and the jewish strategy, while they have been occupied in the postwar anglo era, that they are acting suicidally as well.

    The only way to fix this problem is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 05:06:00 UTC

  • IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW. Given that there is only one law – the

    IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW.

    Given that there is only one law – the prevention of free riding; and one means of suppressing it – the law. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation to escape the limitations of competitors – market competition. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation in the means of escaping the limits of that law. And as such, preservation of that market, by that law, requires that we match innovation in the law, so that the difference between market innovation to escape competition, free riding to take advantage of new opportunities for free riding, and the legal means of suppressing free riding, preserve confidence in taking risks, and preserve the velocity of the market, and preserve the accumulation of wealth. Then the question remains why we would need competing legal systems any more than we would need competing systems of mathematics. If we separate judiciary from government, meaning that we separate the resolution of disputes and innovation in the law, from the production of commons via a contract, then we may need different governments for the different allocations of control over our individual property rights, in order to produce the commons that are desirable by our individual group members, but I can understand no conditions under which we require competing systems of law, other than to allow different ranges of morality in the creative application of free riding. We may require organic and distributed evolution of the law, much like we use in science today – moving from hypothesis on a law, to theory on a law, to ‘law’ proper by the accumulation of judicial consent. But if these laws diverge, then something is wrong. The reason being that all legal disputes are decidable, and if they are not then they are not matters of property open to decision making.

    As far as I know this is a box and the theory of a market for law is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 02:07:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 01:07:00 UTC

  • Curt: Address issue of right to self Government

    Curt: Address issue of right to self Government.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:15:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes

    UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes or what it costs. Set a precedent that ‘if you betray your people we will kill you.” Never surrender, never forgive, never forget, and defeat your enemies completely.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:00:00 UTC

  • Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ri

    Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ridicule will get you hurt, but at least it is not dishonest. Competence without ridicule will not get your hurt, and is honest, and allows you to resort to violence if the other party attempts to disengage via dishonesty, incompetence, or ridicule.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 11:36:00 UTC

  • I just don’t really understand sociological luddites. Sorry, but the agrarian er

    I just don’t really understand sociological luddites. Sorry, but the agrarian era was not idyllic until the invention of power equipment, and then it became irrelevant. So I really have no patience for luddites of any form, libertarian or otherwise.You’re just marxists of personal property rather than marxists of common property.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 10:30:00 UTC

  • I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements,

    I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements, but that within any universal statement tolerating a distribution. This is necessary for the construction of general rules of communication.

    I have had numerous death threats, and been asked to run for office frequently, and I’ve had people stalk me, and I see nothing special about women with the same problem.

    Women are a dead weight in battle and thats the evidence and the evidence is in – women get men killed.

    The value women provide in any conflict is the provision of supplies, staffing the work force, and providing care taking – and losing their sons.

    But there is no equal to the loss of life and limb. So no, this is a statement that has no merit.

    Nature produces many more males than females for precisely this purpose and under stress females produce more males, and under prosperity more females.

    We evolved this way. Men are where nature experiments and we are disposable. ON the other hand possibly because we know we are disposable, we are highly sensitive to politics – so that we cannot be easily disposed of.

    Women on the other hand evolved to make sure they were safe enough to care for their offspring even if their off spring are harmful to the population (see the stats on mothers defense of serial killers and criminals vs fathers)

    So my point is that we feel what our genes instruct us to feel, and our words are just negotiations.

    The family and one vote per family neutralizez the use of government to conduct war between the genders.

    I think this is one of the insights I have tried to provide. And I will never convince women that their offspring are ugly, stupid, and a terrible additoni to the gene pool, and net drain on humanity. I mean, can you imagine women actually looking at their children that way?

    I cannot imagine not. Women used to expose their children if they could not care for them without self harm. Now they don’t need to expose them, just let others pay for them.

    The cost of this is being paid by men who will now see their old ages in poverty, and loneliness.

    Anyway, that is why men will fight. to the death, or why other men will conquer any group that manages to succeed at the feminist program.

    It’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 08:09:00 UTC