Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • PERCEPTIONS: FAMILY STRUCTURE, TRUST AND CLASS Protestants practice the Absolute

    http://www.quora.com/Ethnic-and-Cultural-Differences-1/What-are-the-most-difficult-cultural-understandings-the-French-from-France-have-to-face-when-living-in-North-America/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1FRENCH PERCEPTIONS: FAMILY STRUCTURE, TRUST AND CLASS

    Protestants practice the Absolute Nuclear Family and the High Trust Society. In the Protestant (northern european) social model, high trust is extended to non-family members. In the catholic countries, they practice the extended family model, and high trust is retained for use only by family members, and not extended to ‘everyone you meet’.

    This explains the size of statism, and the authoritarianism in France, versus the libertarianism and rate of entrepreneurship in Anglo countries. The lower the trust in your polity, the more demand there is for authority to organize society, organize production and prevent conflicts. The more trust in your society, the less need demand (or need) there is for the authoritarian organization of society and production. This explains the difference between anglo high trust absolute nuclear, and french lower-trust extended families.

    Furthermore, as the original question positions, the high trust polity means that it is easier to take advantage of that trust and abuse it. So anglos demonstrate higher Altruistic Punishment of offenders, whereas the French do not.

    To French, Anglos appear to be ‘stupid’ and ‘dishonestly friendly’. And treat family members badly To anglos, the French appear to be ill mannered, if not outright rude, coddle laziness in the family; and the government appears to be predatory and corrupt. (In Quebec, it is possibly true.)

    SOME INTERESTING DATA

    1) In negotiations, who are the least hostile people in the world? Americans, Anglo-Canadians, and Germans. Who are the most hostile people in the world: the French. (The study counts the use of certain categories of words).

    2) In Canada, the Anglo immigrants came largely from the lower middle and middle classes. The French citizens of Quebec came disproportionately from the lower classes. This difference in classes provides greater insight into the different cultures than background alone.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 12:12:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY)

    http://www.quora.com/Whats-your-radical-view/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1(STUPID QUESTION OF THE DAY)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 11:59:00 UTC

  • IMPACT OF ORDINARY MAN? (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere,

    http://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-the-society/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1THE IMPACT OF ORDINARY MAN?

    (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

    An important and interesting question, So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues.

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time. But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals. The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common.

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society. If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity.

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does. On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 10:43:00 UTC

  • Thanks to Roman Skaskiw just met some amazing guys who run , Rebbix, which is a

    Thanks to Roman Skaskiw just met some amazing guys who run , Rebbix, which is a software house in Kiev. They are doing it right. Quality people. Quality work. Respect for the craft.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 09:18:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DA

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-new-normal-109616.html#ixzz39bR1AUm1WHY CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DANGEROUS***

    In an article on July 25, the Nobel Laureate economist Michael Spence put it this way:

    —“[A]t this moment in history, the main threats to prosperity … are the huge uncontained negative spillover effects of regional tensions, conflict, and competing claims to spheres of influence. The most powerful impediment to growth and recovery is not this or that economic imbalance; it is a loss of confidence in the systems that made rising global interdependence possible.”—-

    FIRST ENGLAND, THEN USA, CREATED GLOBAL STABILITY THAT MAKES CREDIT POSSIBLE.

    And by abandoning that role, we have sent the world into the international equivalent of lawlessness. Americans cannot ‘save’ by decreasing the military. That is the argument I have been now making for the better part of a decade.

    Libertarian’s and progressives aren’t only wrong, they aren’t only ignorant, they aren’t only stupid – they’re catastrophically dangerous.

    The world order is artificial. The mistake is in not separating aristocratic military services from national boundaries. IN stead, we have the US government functioning as BOTH global guarantor of property rights, AND oppressor of domestic peoples.

    Worse, instead of splitting off the empire into a corporeal police body, under the law of property rights, we construct a socialist organization (the UN) whose entire purpose is to DISMANTLE property rights and FIGHT AGAINST the imposition of the aristocratic order of property rights that has forced the entire world to modernize – leaving behind its ignorance mysticism and poverty.

    Might is not a bad. Violence is a good. It is a product. It’s a valuable product. The question is only whether the violence is used to construct property rights or used violate property rights.

    The moral use of violence is in the construction and maintenance of property rights.

    COMMUNISTS WERE THE WORLDS GREATEST MASS MURDERERS. PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERTARIANS WILL BE SHORTLY SHOWN TO BE THE NEXT PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST MURDER AND SUFFERING.

    Property rights are unnatural. They are an unnatural institution. They are our most difficult and expensive commons. And to construct that commons we must construct testimonial truth. And to do that we require violence to insure it.

    The Cosmopolitan revolution that created the 20th century has been the worst ideological movement since the creation of abrahamic monotheism.

    MURDER BY WORDS

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:41:00 UTC

  • Is anyone else a late adopter? I have no interest in early adoption. Too costly

    Is anyone else a late adopter? I have no interest in early adoption. Too costly in time. Bad return. Better to let the market do the R&D and select the best once established. But I mean, Viber is awesome. 🙂 Wish I was an earlier adopter. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:21:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY: THE VOLUNTARY PHILOSOPHY A lot of philosophy consists mainly of beg

    ARISTOCRACY: THE VOLUNTARY PHILOSOPHY

    A lot of philosophy consists mainly of begging for privilege, or mainly of appeals for consensus on some implied utility. Aristocratic Egalitarianism consists of a voluntary contract for a preference, exclusive of those who disagree with your preference. Aristocracy constructs the virtual family by extending the high trust of in-group members, to all with whom you wold voluntarily exchange insurance for the defense of property rights, and the denial of power to any and all, of power over any and all.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:01:00 UTC

  • My favorite coffee shop wireless password: ” i love lviv” Love your city. Bring

    My favorite coffee shop wireless password: ” i love lviv”

    Love your city. Bring capital to people, not people to capital.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 03:47:00 UTC

  • IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN EQUALITY OF SNOWFLAKES “Every one of us is a very special sn

    IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN EQUALITY OF SNOWFLAKES

    “Every one of us is a very special snowflake, and we are all equal.”

    That doesnt make much sense unless we mean treated equally under the law when we need to resolve a conflict. Marginal difference vs marginal indifference and all that sort of thing….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 03:06:00 UTC

  • POST-DEMOCRATIC PATRIOTISM: THE ARISTOCRATIC CONTRACT I don’t like the word patr

    POST-DEMOCRATIC PATRIOTISM: THE ARISTOCRATIC CONTRACT

    I don’t like the word patriot, because it suggests fealty to church or state. Instead: the obligation of every man who accepts the aristocratic contract is to deny power to any and all over any and all.

    In this sense patriotism is impossible for members of the aristocracy because it implies a moral choice rather than a necessary contractual obligation to all other members of the aristocratic corporation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 02:31:00 UTC