Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • I call it Vitruvianism in honor of Davinci’s Vitruivan Man. —“Man is the Syste

    I call it Vitruvianism in honor of Davinci’s Vitruivan Man.

    —“Man is the System of Weights and Measures for all things Human”—

    But the first man to say it:

    —“Man is the measure of all things.”— Protagoras

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:31:00 UTC

  • VALUE AND MEASUREMENTS MATTER; THE ECONOMICS OF THE IMMORAL; YOUR TIME SHOULD MA

    VALUE AND MEASUREMENTS MATTER; THE ECONOMICS OF THE IMMORAL; YOUR TIME SHOULD MATTER

    (Editor Brandon Hayes, with multiple authors)

    We have some very serious issues with our economics and our economy as current:

    Plausible Bubbles (short list; none are ever sure, when one goes others follow or become hidden):

    Student Debt

    Credit Debt (That’s cards and lines from banks)

    Housing

    Commercial Real-estate

    Automobiles

    Healthcare

    State Pensions

    Federal Debt

    Crypto

    AND MORE!!!

    But, but, but…. Our economy is doing so well; ah, yeah sure, til it isn’t. Look we measure GDP and average income. Both of which have nothing to do with quality of life for individuals and everything to do with leveraging our position on the world financial stage. We run a fiat currency that has no corresponding tangible hard asset (like gold). And we love exaggerating (lying) about the financial shape we’re in [American’s do this personally].

    When we measure and aim at growing something (like GDP) that doesn’t directly translate to well-being (measurements to be debated about), this arguably translates to more suffering, we have an immoral measure; as it doesn’t take morality nor mortality into consideration. It puts them on the back burner, favoring an ever-climbing number. {You can never stop chasing numbers; as numbers never stop running; money is a BAD aim.}

    Next, our traditional economic models are wrong. Nearly all economics is based on this ludicrous assumption of human behavior:

    “Rational choice theory: is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the highest amount of personal utility.”

    I studied economics and marketing in college [among other things] (I was a business major), even then this assumption was asinine. We teach marketing as psychological manipulation; meaning we teach to advertise to irrational agents because we KNOW for a fact they are not rational. To build models based on rational agents is moronic to the point of offense; and dangerous because it doesn’t predict anything properly.

    So far, without even scratching the surface of how complicated economics is at the scales we operate at, we have glaring errors in our framework. What could possibly happen, who could imagine things going array!?! < internet sarcasm.

    It’s time to change; it’s way past time to change; the next market correction is going to put people back on their heels; more over it’s going to knock people back on their asses. It’s time to wake up, pay attention. < repeated mantras

    ________________________________________________

    What follows is a list of jobs that could be culled back 90%+:

    Anything that has to do with pushing paper: lawyer, accountant, financier, traders, stock brokers, administrators, legislatures, lobbyists, and so on. [You do nothing but create hurdles for others actually doing work; and we don’t need you.]

    Anything that is a net value loss: most dirty energy jobs (we should seek energy independence), anything in a cubical that requires a commute, anything sales related (stop selling us shit we don’t need nor do we want it [people just don’t know they don’t]), etc.

    Anything that’ll soon be replaced by technology: Driver of any sort, fast food of any sort, most store clerks and cashiers (see Amazon’s new walk-in and walk-out stores), lecturing (see youtube), etc.

    ^All this, rough and incomplete, and off the top of my head after only one cup of coffee.

    Look, we could pay people half their salaries to stay HOME and sort their family out, clean their communities up, and reduce the stress that the 9-5 lifestyle induces. And it would be better (more beneficial) than them showing up at work.

    We made a mistake during the last crash to bail out the banks (more crooks that ought to be out of jobs) we should have bailed out students and homeowners; it was our money and we gave it to the .001% and the government; have we not learned a god-damned thing?

    The economy of the future is based on local exchange, sustainable supply chains, and a reduction in excess movement of goods. It’s family centric, energy creating, and value added. It’s quality lifetime products not throw away plastic garbage; it’s centered around children and the future NOT me, me, me, now, now, now! That’s not getting us anywhere take a look around at the twilight zone reality in which you reside.

    _______________________________________________

    Libertarians and an-caps you don’t have the answers; your approaches are as flawed as those in use currently and we don’t have the time, energy, nor the wherewithal for you to give it a whirl.

    Marxists; you’ve been so wrong and murdering millions for so long I have a hard time understanding why we even let you speak.

    “Let’s get this labor thing straight. Labor has no value other than under capitalism we can create a consumer out of the laborer which organizes the very fractional contribution of labor into large groups producing many complex parts, and the complex part provides the value.

    The profit on the price is required to organize others in this network.

    That’s the whole thing. If you’re ‘labor’ you aren’t ‘value’ to others, since none of us is productive enough to matter. What matters is multipliers, and labor isn’t one.

    Labor’s primary value lies in (a) you are at least self supporting because (b) as a slave you’re even less productive, and (c) as a barbarian you’re a parasite.

    The value is in organizing using incentives using prices and profits.“ – Curt Doolittle

    _______________________________________________

    Here I should square the circle of time. If your labor isn’t worth anything (and in and of itself, it isn’t) then your time is worth nothing to others; but it is worth EVERYTHING to you and it should be. You have one life [80 years old]; it’s roughly 700,000 hours; you’ll spend a 3rd of those sleeping, leaving you with 467,200 waking hours. If you’re spending a majority of YOUR waking hours working at something you hate, cut that out right now!

    You ought to value your own time above all else; BUT you can’t force others to value it nor pay you for it. You must create something with your time and offer it as fair value exchange. This is the only way to make your time worth anything to others. Just because you show up and do a job; doesn’t mean you’re adding anything of worth [it’s still very hard to find good employees, ask any employer]. Master something (anything) and make your time worthwhile.

    I have deep sympathy for people living currently; as I am one of them. I have no problems walking in other’s shoes. We have lied strategically to generations of humans (all the generations), we are at a unique point in time where the lies can be rooted out and have real light shown upon them. Many of them (lies) are painful to let go, but never in history has there been a lie that didn’t come back and take its toll in the future. Reality doesn’t take kindly to being mischaracterized!

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:31:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON TODAY”S ART WORLD 1) spaces are now general purpose rathe

    ECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON TODAY”S ART WORLD

    1) spaces are now general purpose rather than designed for function. This makes them less amenable to artistic treatment because they have to be ‘resold’.

    2) Postwar materials (steel, glass, and panel products) are not amenable to organic arts, and it’s organic arts that constitute the majority of the western thematic tradition – particularly the human form.

    3) Architectural software is .. great for engineering and tradesmen but tends to produce ‘sh-tty’ attempts at imitating Lloyd Wright – to mid century, as if the Craftsman never happened. But at least soviet concrete brutalism is done. Fk. Great for government buildings. Sh-t for the artwork they decorated it with.

    4) Hollywood is a black hole for the arts, because it’s possible to make money at it on and off, while keeping ‘other jobs’ going.

    5) Camera first, large printers second and Digital third has eliminated much of the handicraft that went into the production of durable arts.

    6) Decoration will fit anywhere but “Art” (meaning, craftsmanship, materials) has been successfully undermined by the marxist-pomo-feminist tradition, and intentional deprivation of citizens from education in the heroic tradition – replaced with the victim tradition has made high art impossible or unmarketable.

    7) The economics of producing inventory vs the percent of sales is such that, say, if you want to produce 200k of income for a gallery and 60K of income for yourself, you have to do the math on how much time and materials you can put into each work. So at an average of 10k per piece, that means 20ps must sell, that means no less than five galleries, that means 40 pcs in inventory at all times. And that’s only so many days or weeks per piece. Most people produce a production line, and use it to finance their artwork. (I know art jewelry, print and panting the best.) Scale up to sculpture then to play, then to film, and down to print and farther down to photo and farther down to posters and kitch but the general math is the same -just like every other biz. There is a reason single digits of artists make a living, and instead work to fund their art hobby that generates lunch money.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:30:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) yep. any country can be great if it first creates a good discip

    (from elsewhere)

    yep. any country can be great if it first creates a good disciplined nationalist military that then produce a judiciary, that then produces a government, that then produces a market, that then funds commons. People think it’s the other way around. it isn’t. Its military on down. One step at a time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF

    “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”

    —“…

    … One Law to Rule Them All

    … One Law to Find Them

    … One Law to Bring Them All

    … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence,

    … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets

    … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into

    … the Gods we Imagined….

    … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version:

    1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only.

    2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.

    3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).

    4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons.

    5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public.

    6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech…

    7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable.

    8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common.

    9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury.

    10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here.

    Notes:

    Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt.

    Notes continued:

    But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal.

    Notes continued:

    Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH

    UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers.

    Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons.

    The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ).

    The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry.

    Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade.

    Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period.

    The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries.

    The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century.

    The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property.

    As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism.

    The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in

    The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism.

    The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges.

    The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons.

    This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • SETTING EXPECTATIONS on “THE BOOK” I have multiple books at different stages of

    SETTING EXPECTATIONS on “THE BOOK”

    I have multiple books at different stages of completion: 1) Essays selected by Michael and Alessandro, 2) Sovereignty which is the reformation of libertarianism, that I pulled out of the main book to shorten it, and 3) Whatever I end up calling the main book – I keep changing the title. 4) The Constitution which itself will be somewhere between a pamphlet and a book; And a fifth 5) which is closer to secular religion that I don’t expect to finish for a decade or more (assuming i live to finish it). Plus 6) We’re producing the Courses that teach the method, and apply it – because two things happened: I got stuck and needed to write the courseware to provide a foundation for the audience and distill it down to something digestible; and secondly, it was clear that we would need an overview.

    The reason is that my main book, which is extremely detailed, full of disambiguations into series and operational language is much more like Keynes’ General Theory (Math) than Marx’s Capital (lies), and on the scope of Heidegger’s attempt at inverting noun and verb, Kant’s attempt at secular theology, Hobbes/Locke/Smith/Hume success at realism and empiricism, and Democritus/Aristotle’s success at naturalism and reason. In other words, just as Aristotle created reason and naturalism, the British Enlightenment created empiricism and realism, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell(et all), Spencer, created science and the precursor to operationalism, I’m at the end of the operationalist stream thanks to Hayek (distributed knowledge, law as falsification), Popper (Knowledge, falsification) , Brouwer, Bridgman, Poincare (operationalism as falsification); Turing, the analytics (operational logic as falsification), Chomsky (continuous recursion) and Mandelbrot(operationalism at scale); And updated with what we’ve learned from cognitive science (language and the language facility, experimental psychology, the study of the brain’s functional areas, and neurology that facilitates them.)

    What does this mean? The Book is not going to reduce all of the Doolittle’s Propertarian Project of rendering the group strategy of western civlization into a formal logic and law to compete with the semitic abrahamic books of deceit, into common language prose – just the opposite. It is a book for other thought leaders, and would be critics.

    When the constitution is done (it isn’t, and john’s right to pressure me to work on it) that will be, as I understand it, the ‘short version’ of everything in a language everyone can – with effort – understand. And then if necessary refer to the big book for further explanation and study (think of it as a reference work). The Constitution – which is a *template* for the construction of ALL human polities regardless of distribution of decision making and returns on gains, is the culmination of the work. The Preface to the Constitution “The White Law” will explain the law beyond which none may tread without incurring retaliation by european men.

    At present we are trying to get Bill and the other guys (i don’t want to commit them by naming them) to teach. But they must have a course or two to teach. This requires I finish my work on the Foundations course and Bill finish his (ePrime-operational prose and more), and I put both of our new content contributions into the book, then finish editing it (which is difficult because it’s technical work).

    I have to repeat this notice regularly but each time I add a bit of detail. Part of my strategy was to create demand for the work by working in public. However, I want to perform due diligence against misrepresentation by frequently setting expectations, particularly of newbies, that if you want some sophomoric ideology to promote under democracy this isn’t it and I wouldn’t do it.

    This is the natural law under which men agree NOT to engage in conquest, predation, enserfement, enslavement, or extermination – and any violation by any excuse whatsoever will simply justify that action. In other words, this strategy, this work, this law, this constitution, is a via-negativa argument for cooperation. It is not the benefits of cooperating without parasitism. It is that the only reason not to prey upon is if we engage in full reciprocity – productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated interests of one another’s ingroups.

    This is european civilization with teeth.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:28:00 UTC

  • “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.” (worth rep

    “NOTHING ELSE REALLY DEFINES ALTERNATIVES WITH ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS.”

    (worth repeating)

    —“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems.

    Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— GL Sevier

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:28:00 UTC

  • DON’T HATE, WE DON’T NEED TO We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the

    DON’T HATE, WE DON’T NEED TO

    We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the “rule of law of reciprocity”, and must insist on truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in public matters, as well as voluntary association and disassociation.

    The left are the haters and can’t succeed without lying and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities.

    With the “Winning Right”, the rule of law of RECIPROCITY, insistence on truth, voluntary association and disassociation, the losing left would group together in localities where they can create their own local laws and norms suited to their wants and needs. What’s great about that? They couldn’t infect the rest of us with their ideological hell.

    Thanks to: John Mark and Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC

  • WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BE

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS.

    Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’)

    Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.”

    This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance.

    Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency.

    However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency.

    In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC