Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MOR

    “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MORAL CODE”

    But the only way that is physically or logically possible is if we respect each other’s property rights.

    This is the genius of property rights as a social order compared to majority rule government as a social order.

    Property rights make all more complex moral codes possible. Without them no cooperation between peoples with different moral codes is possible.

    This is why democratic government cannot survive heterogeneity – ‘diversity’. People in any democratic body politic must have the same status signals, family structures, metaphysical value judgements, and even similar economic interests.

    Otherwise, majority rules is a means of destroying the market for cooperation inside the body politic, and by consequence, outside the body politic as well.

    Democratic government in any heterogeneous polity must and will lead to economic decay.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 17:14:00 UTC

  • (allergies) What preservatives or chemistry are in Powdered Sugar? Also known as

    (allergies)

    What preservatives or chemistry are in Powdered Sugar? Also known as confectioners sugar.

    Couldn’t figure out what it was. But it put me down hard for hours. Just coming out of it. Same effect as whatever is in coconut.

    One more thing off the menu.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 17:02:00 UTC

  • MOTORCYCLE. BACKPACK. IPHONE. MAC. MONEY. FAIR WEATHER. (fantasy humor) That’s a

    MOTORCYCLE. BACKPACK. IPHONE. MAC. MONEY. FAIR WEATHER.

    (fantasy humor)

    That’s all it takes really. I mean, if exploration is your stimulation, possessions are an anchor, that means you need only more possessions. Not that I’m against consumption. Just the opposite.

    A female friend mentioned that men are expensive. But we’re not. It’s mating signals that are expensive. If you don’t try to catch a mate with peacock feathers of assets, then life is actually amazingly inexpensive. Especially if you make over six figures. I mean. You pretty much can’t spend it on yourself. What does a man need besides a truck, sports car, or motorcycle, fully serviced (housekeeping and cooking) studio apartment, big tv, internet and cable, an amateur sports team, thirty friends and a fat bank account really? I mean does it get better than college, ever? 😉

    Facetious really. Family rocks.

    But it’s the family that’s expensive, not the man. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 08:34:00 UTC

  • YES. COUNT ME LIBERTARIAN “There’s another group of folks out there though: The

    YES. COUNT ME LIBERTARIAN

    “There’s another group of folks out there though: The people who want the federal government shut down, defaulting on their debts, and otherwise completely unable to function. These folks are positively gleeful… The libertarian wing … gets exactly what they want the longer the federal government stays shut down.” -Dave. Cleveland.

    I WANT TO DE LEGITIMIZE THE STATE. SHUT IT DOWN. SECEED. And be free again of the evil empire.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 08:00:00 UTC

  • HIGH INVESTMENT PARENTING Doesn’t mean you spend money on your child. It means t

    HIGH INVESTMENT PARENTING

    Doesn’t mean you spend money on your child. It means that you spend time with your child and constantly teach him or her valuable information about the world.

    Throwing the child into the state baby-sitter system which demonstrably fails to make them productive and self sufficient citizens for purely political reasons isn’t high investment.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 07:11:00 UTC

  • W.E.I.R.D.(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) WEIRD Societi

    W.E.I.R.D.(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic)

    WEIRD Societies Think Differently

    Why? Nuclear Family and Individual Property Rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 06:34:00 UTC

  • ON REFERENCING DATA You know, I love empirical data. Really good data is pretty

    ON REFERENCING DATA

    You know, I love empirical data. Really good data is pretty specific. You can know what went into it. And if you collect lots of BITS of really good data, then you can learn a lot from it.

    But most government data about an economy is incredibly loaded. I’m pretty good at getting through it (although, not like, my hero Karl Smith who is on the other side of the political fence.) That data has been manipulated, contrived, and god knows what else. As an index it’s relatively valuable in pointing out general directions. But unless you know a lot about the individuals that constitute the source of that data, It’s pretty hard to say that data has much meaning.

    And they can’t really show you that underlying data, or collect it, because doing so would justify and be used by different groups for mutual criticism.

    That might be true.

    But at least it would be honest.

    THe thing is, that if you’re trying to solve political conflict by creating growth then obfuscation is pretty useful.

    But if you’re trying to solve for a solution to political conflict when growth isn’t available to you, or when political and moral conflict provides greater incentive than economic growth, you NEED those underlying numbers, because they tell you want you might be able to DO now that growth is not available to lubricate the friction between groups with disharmonious interests.

    It matters that the postwar era is over. We no longer can think we’re special. We’re not. We were special only because the rest of the world had either committed economic suicide or adopted communism and was in the process of committing economic suicide.

    WIthout that temporary advantage we can’t create the same growth in the bottom of the population that masked their competing interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 05:00:00 UTC

  • WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. SINCE. ROOSEVELT. (sentimental) From today. By Eric Cantor

    WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. SINCE. ROOSEVELT.

    (sentimental)

    From today. By Eric Cantor, House majority leader

    “President Obama has often chosen to unilaterally circumvent the law under the guise of executive authority. Most recently, that was demonstrated in July with his delay of Obamacare mandates for corporations , but it has been a hallmark of this presidency.

    “Courts have held that President Obama violated the Constitution with certain “recess” appointments , ignoring the required consent of Congress. He has abused executive-branch “rule making” rather than working with Congress to pass laws. He has ignored the letter of the law when it comes to religious liberty and work requirements for welfare .

    “President Obama has used executive orders to unilaterally change U.S. immigration laws. His administration has used waivers to change laws such as No Child Left Behind to compel states to adopt new policies.

    “In some of these instances, the president attempted to garner statutory authority, failed to do so and then acted in defiance of that. In other instances, he never bothered to find consensus and ignored Congress from the outset, usually contending that he simply had no choice. This is no way to govern, and it cripples the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers envisioned.”

    Carter was pretty bad. Bush was pretty bad. But neither of them did anywhere near this damage to the division of powers.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 04:50:00 UTC

  • PRETTY LEAVES! (sweet) I love the fall. Kiev is prettiest in summer. It’s a gree

    PRETTY LEAVES!

    (sweet)

    I love the fall. Kiev is prettiest in summer. It’s a green city. (The green hides the poor condition of the commons – terrible roads, sidewalks, and dirty buildings.)

    There is nothing like New England and Olde England in the fall. Nothing. Sigh. Although the whole Tennessee and Kentucky thing in the mountains is almost spiritual as well. But that’s true pretty much all year ’round.

    Out of our window I can see the steeple of the church in my current cover photo. Still half green but lots of orange and yellow.

    Ukraine is a poor and corrupt country. But you know, I remember the 1960’s when abandoned depression era houses were still standing in fields all around our house. It’s possible for neighborhoods, cities and countries to ‘come back’ with time.

    Boston was a dump in the early 8o’s after decades of socialist influence in government. So was new york. But once we’d had enough of the ‘great society’ nonsense, crime was heavily punished and investments were made and the cities came back – mostly. At least they aren’t what they used to be.

    The miracle city in the east is probably Prague. And Kiev is trying to slowly repeat that miracle, by prettifying one neighborhood at a time. If the government hand’ killed it’s ability to borrow the residential boom in kiev alone from development would carry the country.

    In a city where the wage monthly wage is about $600, compared to say, Atlanta where it’s about $7,000, apartments are hovels, and decent one’s three times their salary. This is purely because of a shortage. And the shortage purely a problem of incompetence, corruption and lack of credit.

    We seek pictures of Maydan, Kreshatik, Saksaganskogo, or where I live on Saghaidachnogo, and it’s beautiful sure. But the majority of kiev is those horrid soviet era apartment buildings with external porches enclosed in random wood and glass aftermarket panels, with dirty air conditioners and wires hanging off them, and rust, crumbling mortar, peeling paint, graffiti and unkempt lawns.

    I mean, we’ve been tearing that stuff down in the USA as a ‘great society’ failure of family-destroying, civic culture-destroying, ‘manufactured slums’ for decades now. But people here still live in them.

    It’s no wonder why everyone dresses well. Its inexpensive status signaling. It’s all they can signal with.

    So I’m going to appreciate the people, the leaves and the ancient architecture, and hope that over time, all architectural remnants of the great soviet collapse are slowly replaced by something taht does these wonderful people justice.

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 04:46:00 UTC

  • MORE FASCINATING HUMAN STUFF : RATES OF GAY DIVORCE (interesting) Regarding UK c

    MORE FASCINATING HUMAN STUFF : RATES OF GAY DIVORCE

    (interesting)

    Regarding UK civil marriages.

    Women, whether straight or gay:

    a) want to tie the knot faster than men

    b) have higher _emotional_ expectations than men

    c) want to end it sooner, and more frequently than men

    Men, by contrast, are:

    a) slower to grasp and understand emotional relations than women.

    b) form lasting emotional relations mostly out of habituation.

    c) stay in relationships out of habituation – ‘comfort’, (Regularity of a relationship rather than stimulation from the relationship. This is partly because of the long emotional adaptation time men require vs women.)

    d) demonstrate being more sentimental than women after the end of a relationship.

    Durability of Relations:

    For women, children are permanent relations, but men are disposable relations. For men, all women are permanent relations. It’s just reproductive economics. It is this way. Because it has to be this way. Women build their children but men build entire tribes.

    It’s not complicated. What makes it complicated is confusing equality under the law in disputes over property, with equality of productivity in the work place, with inequality of reproductive, moral and personal interests.

    We are equal in economic cooperation, but not in emotional interests or reproduction.

    QUOTE

    “In the seven years since gay couples were able to have civil partnerships, 3.2 per cent of male unions ended in dissolution, compared to 6.1 per cent of female couples.”

    (Note: there is a pretty common life cycle to breakups. It pretty much takes about 20 years to be sure you’ll stay together. But rates decline rapidly after five to seven years.)

    “Sociologists believe the lower rates of ‘divorces’ among gay men may reflect a trend of women committing sooner and having higher expectations for a relationship. Women in civil partnerships tie the knot at an average age of 37.6, compared to men, for whom the average age is 40. Erzsebet Bukodim, sociologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In heterosexual marriage the divorce rate is higher if you enter marriage at a very young age. That might be one of the reasons we’re seeing this [high dissolution rate for women] in civil partnerships.”

    “Gunnar Andersson, professor of demography at Stockholm University, has found in successive studies that women in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are twice as likely to dissolve their civil partnerships than men. He said: “This reflects trends in a heterosexual marriage because women are more prone to say they want to marry – but they’re also more likely to initiate a divorce. Women usually have higher demands on relationship quality, that’s often been said in studies. Even if you control for age there is still a trend of more women ending partnerships than men.”

    “Previous figures show British women in heterosexual relationships are more likely to file for divorce than men. Women initiated the divorce in two thirds of cases in the UK in 2011.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 04:22:00 UTC