Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LEFTISM —“Leftism — An ideology that seeks to tear down meritocracy, exception

    LEFTISM

    —“Leftism — An ideology that seeks to tear down meritocracy, exceptionalism and traditional structures so that the lowest common denominator can satiate their feelings of envy and status seeking via pathological altruism using other people’s wealth. (Leftism is an attempt to obtain status without contribution.) A capitalist, leftist society primarily legitimizes accomplishment in only a couple domains — money and hedonism — at the expense of all higher values, including long-term social stability.”—

    —“Instead of encouraging individual accomplishment, Leftism is driven by a “leveling dynamic” summarized by the pithy slogan “everyone gets a trophy”. Social “progress” is defined in terms of maximizing short-term individual hedonism at the expense of general social health. Promoting an “anything goes” values, the end result is a cloud of largely indistinguishable, atomized individuals, rather than anything resembling social coherence or strength. “Culture” is seen as a fluid construct, to be thrown out casually and replaced with a new alternative at the slightest whim. Moral and cultural relativism reigns. No system can be seen as better than any other, lest the proponents of the inferior system take offense.”— by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:19:00 UTC

  • COMPLEMENTARITY —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement on

    COMPLEMENTARITY

    —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement one another as separate parts that together make up a composite whole.” Also called complementarism. Related to the empirical view that men and women have different psychologies and are thus suited to different, complementary roles in society. Both men and women are seen as responsible for contributing “civilizing influence” to society as a whole, beginning with the atomic unit of society, the family. Among Reactionaries, most strains of feminism are seen as exacerbating male-female conflict and mortgaging long-term social vigor for the fleeting rewards of frivolity, hypergamy, and juvenilism. By the same token, misogyny, adultery, domestic abuse, fatherly irresponsibility, and the incessant whining of “men’s rights activists” are frowned upon as encouraging the same conflicts. Reactionaries acknowledge that securing the future depends on raising children in a stable and nurturing environment with a father and mother, and that the selfish desires of parents are secondary to this central goal. Without children, a culture simply self-terminates. Idolizing childlessness is a form of cultural suicide.”—by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:14:00 UTC

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumul

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz

    —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumulation even those who leech on producers, the welfare, food stamp, state pension and state income dependent can live an extremely wealthy life in the most Smithian of senses despite not producing any value. “—

    This brings up an interesting point. The assumption in libertarian thought, is that adherence to moral codes (NAP) gain one access to the market – access to opportunity created by participating in the market. This assumes, as was true in ancient and medieval (pre-industrial) eras, that we all had labor to contribute. Further, that we gained right to hold property by fighting for the property rights of all members of the polity. These were entry costs, if not also entry-cost-rituals.

    Adherence to norms is costly. Respect for rituals is costly. Observance of private property rights is costly. Production is costly in effort. These are very high costs that the individual must bear whether or not he obtains rewards from the market, by paying those costs he makes possible the reduction of transaction costs, that makes the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) possible.

    Thought experiment: What happens if only 10% of the population is capable of engaging in production, but their production was sufficient to both keep say 80% of that production, and leave 20% of it for the remaining 80% of the population? The 80% have no means of engaging in production. And adherence to norms, including the norm of property rights, is of no value to them. Yet we could either exterminate them, or pay them to police the social order and make possible the low transaction costs, so that for the minority 10%, the voluntary organization of production remains possible.

    So, if ordinary people, engaged in production or not, respect AND enforce property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, they are in fact doing labor. If we do not pay them for their efforts, I think that this is free riding. And they are right not to respect property. Or other norms for that matter. And they have no money to function as consumers unless we do so anyway.

    So, rather than treat moral rules and private property as natural laws – spurious as that magical term is – I prefer to hold myself to the constant rule of voluntary exchange. If we want people to adhere to and enforce rules so that we can engage in the voluntary organization of production, then we can pay them to. I don’t think they have a ‘right’ to compensation. But then, I don’t think we can hold them to adhering to property rights, which is a very high cost, if we don’t pay them for it.

    By applying property rights CONSISTENTLY I end up with this logic. And with that logic, and that consistency, all the fallacies of moral argument disappear. Every human action at all times in favor of cooperation is an exchange.

    How does one price payment for adherence to norms? I’m still working on that but it actually looks pretty simple.

    Maybe too many jumps there. Think it should be easy for you. Happy to clarify otherwise.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 02:10:00 UTC

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz: —“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfi

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz:

    —“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfish gene one but a value loaded social darwinistic one which raises an eyebrow of suspicion as it developed in the imperialistic era of agricultural-industrial domination over hunter gatherers throughout the world. If the data about the Ashkenazi jewish IQ is correct and the argument proposed by Gregory Clark in his Farewell to Alms is correct. There´s no reason to disbelieve that: given an unhampered market, sovereign private property society without a state and the consequent welfare programs that follow from it(military overproduction, affirmative action, minimum wage, etc included) the intergenerational tendency would be eugenic. EVEN controlling for higher availability of medical facilities, pharmaceuticals, etc. After all many of the genes responsible for immune processes are fairly recent….The [active] social darwinism of the 19th century is antiquated and unnecessary given the fundamental institutions of a free society. Having said that here are some Hegelian thoughts on anarcho-libertarianism as the millennial crusade for the Spirit of the world emanating the ultimate and final ethic.”—

    Well said. Elegantly. My question is whether the NAP/IVP is a sufficient basis for that order anarchic order. Propertarianism would suggest that high performing groups adhere to much, much, higher standards, and then subjugate their masses by using lower standards, and trade with other states on even lower standards. I think that the NAP/IVP is too low a standard if we ask people to voluntarily join an anarchic polity. And we only think it’s OK because as libertarians we have a cognitive bias (moral blindness) that discounts the cost of OBJECTIVELY unethical and immoral actions as described by Propertarianism’s spectrum that prohibits free riding.

    Free Riding is the negative claim and property the positive claim, but the two claims are identical under propertarianism. Where under NAP/IVP prevention of free riding stops at physical aggression. However, people with higher moral thresholds (and who are stronger) see actions such as blackmail, and ‘cheating’, as well as immoral behavior, as violations of the contract for cooperation which puts in place the prohibition on free riding.

    I would never join a low trust polity, because it would be poorer than a higher trust polity, since trust determines the velocity of innovation, production and trade.

    So I agree with your argument that all we need is an anarchic polity. I disagree that the NAP/IVP is sufficient for the formation of it. And while I haven’t done surveys yet to prove it (I will) science, logic and history, are pretty clearly on my side.

    Anarchy is right. Sure. But the NAP/IVP is insufficient. I do not have the empirical evidence to demonstrate what level of suppression of free riding in the unethical and immoral range would be required for the formation of a voluntary polity, but I suggest that it will be far closer to the very limit of Propertarianism’s spectrum of prohibitions, than it is to rothbard’s NAP/IVP.

    Hopefully within a year or two I will have that evidence.

    But I’ll put money on the fact that only indoctrinated rothbardians choose the NAP/IVP level of suppression. That’s because it’s pretty clear that human beings prefer (logically) seller beware, rather than buyer beware. And propertarianism ensconces that in the legal code.

    Thanks for great (rare) dialog.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 01:48:00 UTC

  • HAS HIS WAR

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-this-is-not-some-kind-of-a-shortlived-uprising-it-is-a-war-9321410.htmlPUTIN HAS HIS WAR

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 12:28:00 UTC

  • AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY 1) If

    AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY

    1) If you look at mainstream economics as the study of human behavior demonstrated by the record of human actions, then I think it’s an excellent means of conducting research in social science. And, by and large, that is what the economic community engages in, and how most of them describe their work. Because the canons of science suggest that such a claim is all that they can make.

    2) If you look at mainstream economics as the source of government policy which can be used to maximize all available opportunity for consumption, then some economists might argue that is true although a lot might also argue that their work is used for that purpose but should not be, since their science is too young to be used for that purpose.

    3) if you look at mainstream economics as a means by which to justify ‘dishonest socialism’ under the Keynesian model of forcible redistribution without control of the means of production, and a tool by which to undermine western exceptionalism, then it’s really not hard to make that argument.

    4) If you look at economics as the study of moral human cooperation, then austrian economics (or at least, praxeological analysis) exposes the immorality of political intervention in the economy and the consequences of that intervention over the long term. Unfortunately the progressive argument – which can only be settled empirically if and when we demonstrate that they are wrong by catastrophic failure – is that the short term good accomplished (the acceleration of the reproductive rates of the lower classes) compensates for any harm in the long term, and in the long term technology (and our supposed infinite wisdom) will solve that problem in the long run for us.

    CLOSING

    The problem is that under majority rule and monopoly government, we cannot allow the dishonest socialists, and moral and honest austrians to conduct their experiments in parallel. Were we able to divide our polity either internally (by class) or externally (by separate states) we could run this empirical test. I would assume that under that test the keynesian group would reproduce and generate consumption through reproduction that could not be matched by the innovation of the austrian group – since generating demand through innovation is more expensive a research program than generating demand through malthusian reproduction.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 12:22:00 UTC

  • TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Difference-Female-Brains/dp/046500556X/IT’S TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 11:59:00 UTC

  • ILLNESS AND PRODUCTIVITY I’ve been sick since, what, the 27th? Maybe 26th? But d

    ILLNESS AND PRODUCTIVITY

    I’ve been sick since, what, the 27th? Maybe 26th? But damn. It’s been a productive period. I think it’s because the UK trip was so important for me.

    Want to thank a few people for seriously improving my thinking while in the UK:

    Don Finnegan and Andy Curzon. They have strategic intuitions I know how to give voice to. I would not have done this work as I have without something Don said to me a few years ago in Bodrum. I’m sure he didn’t know what impact it had on me. Andy confirmed it and gave me a brilliant strategic direction to work in last year.

    Want to again than Sean Gabb for helping me understand the current state of libertarian thought from his perspective.

    And of course Ayelam Valentine Agaliba for giving me homework assignments on how to improve my arguments. 🙂

    A apologize to Jan Lester who was kind enough to fit me in, but I somehow fouled communications and missed him. London is big and it takes longer to do everything, and I could not get my phone working reliably.

    Forever in your debt.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:28:00 UTC

  • (restoration) QUESTION: Does someone keep track of the extant members of the ari

    (restoration)

    QUESTION: Does someone keep track of the extant members of the aristocratic families?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:10:00 UTC

  • MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING. (pulled out and reposted) Liberta

    MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING.

    (pulled out and reposted)

    Libertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.)

    Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated.

    However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described.

    If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes.

    As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary.

    Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another.

    Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:09:00 UTC