Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Just Ask. Don’t Ask Permission. It Increases Transaction Costs. 😉

    Apr 24, 2020, 11:28 AM

    —“I had a bit of a thought and wanted to run something past you, do you have a little time to spare.”— via PM.

    Don’t ask permission. Just ask. It’s my job and I like my job. 😉 Either I’ll answer, or; I’ll answer in the feed bacause others will benefit, or; I’ll direct you to a link on the web site or one of the other guys. or; I’ll tell you I’ll answer when I can because it will take more time than I have at the moment, Or; I’ll tell you its inappropriate for me to answer fight club questions. Or; I’ll ignore it because … lots of reasons.

    • Hugs
      Edit

  • The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies

    Apr 24, 2020, 12:15 PM

    –“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend

    Yes, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)

  • The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies

    Apr 24, 2020, 12:15 PM

    –“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend

    Yes, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)

  • Money Proper

    Apr 24, 2020, 12:21 PM The term “Note(s)” (debt instrument), like “Money” (medium of exchange), and “Currency” (“in circulation”) has been abused. Technically, money proper must consist of commodity money. All else is a commodity money substitute: – Scrip ( currency substitute that replaces legal tender. a form of credit and documentation of debt)> – Token-prepaid-money-substitute (bitcoin: divisible tokens) > – Cheque-non-transferrable-claim-on-account > – Note-transferrable-claim-on-account > – Banknote-claim-on-deposits > – Share-in-the-corporation-assets > – Fiat-Share-in-the-economy : Fiat Money (What we all use today) The rest are various financial instruments that are less liquid.

  • Money Proper

    Apr 24, 2020, 12:21 PM The term “Note(s)” (debt instrument), like “Money” (medium of exchange), and “Currency” (“in circulation”) has been abused. Technically, money proper must consist of commodity money. All else is a commodity money substitute: – Scrip ( currency substitute that replaces legal tender. a form of credit and documentation of debt)> – Token-prepaid-money-substitute (bitcoin: divisible tokens) > – Cheque-non-transferrable-claim-on-account > – Note-transferrable-claim-on-account > – Banknote-claim-on-deposits > – Share-in-the-corporation-assets > – Fiat-Share-in-the-economy : Fiat Money (What we all use today) The rest are various financial instruments that are less liquid.

  • The Cognitive Origins of Conspiracy and Oppression Theories

    A conspiracy theory requires that one attribute incentives that fail the test of occam’s razor, almost always because the individual is a social outlier, and has limited sensitivity to, experience with, or knowledge and understanding of how people operate in large groups. Conspiracy theory is the equivalent of dunning kruger failure of personal assessment, projected upon interpersonal and social assessment. In both cases the individual attributes greater ability, agency, and logic to the self and others than they have, because of mistrust, because they do not trust either their own cognition, others, or both. This is why conspiracy theory (systemization) tends to be a male category of cognitive failure, and oppression (personalization) tends to be a female category of cognitive failure. However, we note that in both the Male conspiracy theory and the female oppression cognitive failures, that the parties do not seek to understand the incentives of the individuals they are judging, or to falsify their conspiracy or oppression narratives. There is a reason for it. The human mind operates by building a world model ‘fit for it’s physical, emotional, psychological, and mental budget’. A physiological, emotional, and cognitive economy. This is why people who are ill, depressed, tired, at different points of the day, rested, healthy, excited, or joyous all perceive the same world slighlty differently In both conspiracy and oppression cognitive failures, the individual has defended his or her desperate attempt to suppress the feeling of being out of control of his or her life (due to his or her cognitive limitations), by false self-promise of comprehension. Status is our human accounting system. There are healthy and unhealthy means of suppression emotional panic from cognitive failure to find a means of obtaining success (status) in the social, economic, and political marketplace. Agency (success), Truth / Knowledge / Understanding (acceptance), Philosophy (settlement), Theology-Religion (detachment), Self Discipline (buddhism,stoicism), Ritual/Sport-exercise/hypersocializatin(exposure), Conspiracy and Oppression (withdrawal) narratives are the most common means of providing mindfulness. It’s not hard to see how the consequences of deviation from Knowledge escalate. So, both oppression and conspiracy behaviors are expressions of proto-depression, or prolonged depression from the continuous failure of one’s ideas about one’s self and others and what is in other’s abilities and interests. And That’s because evolution insured that we would remain optimistic to survive in the face of incredible stresses when continued existence is no longer rational. Exhaust all possible explanation for rational choice prior to default to malincentives (conspiracy of intent). In most cases it’s conspiracy of organizational incentives, conspiracy of common interests, conspiracy of genetic bias (such as the ashkenazi adoption of the female strategy), ignorance, error, or stupidity. If you exhaust all of the possible rational incentives then only malincentives remain. But rare. Never attribute to intention what is the product of either incentives, ignorance, or stupidity. Humans by and large justify what they do post hoc with a story. Humans by ad large pursue self interests that they can justify with a story afterward. Because that’s what our brains do. And frankly the more responsibility you have, for the more people, for more risk, the more you have to compromise between different sets of unacceptable externalities that are the cost of getting whatever it s you’re doing done with the resources available, time available, people you have to work with, and incentives you can provide. Most organizational failure that we interpret as conspiracy is the result of people in organizations that are producing malincentives by accident rather than by design. Most groups that engage in evil are doing so because they consider what they’re doing a good. As I’m fond of saying, serial killers justify what they do, and the mothers of serial killers justify what they’ve done, and the fathers of serial killers are happy to throw away the key if not pull the lever. So if it is other than a conspiracy of intention, our problem is not to wish for better humans, but to rule with the humans we have, using the law and incentives to prevent malincentives.

  • The Cognitive Origins of Conspiracy and Oppression Theories

    A conspiracy theory requires that one attribute incentives that fail the test of occam’s razor, almost always because the individual is a social outlier, and has limited sensitivity to, experience with, or knowledge and understanding of how people operate in large groups. Conspiracy theory is the equivalent of dunning kruger failure of personal assessment, projected upon interpersonal and social assessment. In both cases the individual attributes greater ability, agency, and logic to the self and others than they have, because of mistrust, because they do not trust either their own cognition, others, or both. This is why conspiracy theory (systemization) tends to be a male category of cognitive failure, and oppression (personalization) tends to be a female category of cognitive failure. However, we note that in both the Male conspiracy theory and the female oppression cognitive failures, that the parties do not seek to understand the incentives of the individuals they are judging, or to falsify their conspiracy or oppression narratives. There is a reason for it. The human mind operates by building a world model ‘fit for it’s physical, emotional, psychological, and mental budget’. A physiological, emotional, and cognitive economy. This is why people who are ill, depressed, tired, at different points of the day, rested, healthy, excited, or joyous all perceive the same world slighlty differently In both conspiracy and oppression cognitive failures, the individual has defended his or her desperate attempt to suppress the feeling of being out of control of his or her life (due to his or her cognitive limitations), by false self-promise of comprehension. Status is our human accounting system. There are healthy and unhealthy means of suppression emotional panic from cognitive failure to find a means of obtaining success (status) in the social, economic, and political marketplace. Agency (success), Truth / Knowledge / Understanding (acceptance), Philosophy (settlement), Theology-Religion (detachment), Self Discipline (buddhism,stoicism), Ritual/Sport-exercise/hypersocializatin(exposure), Conspiracy and Oppression (withdrawal) narratives are the most common means of providing mindfulness. It’s not hard to see how the consequences of deviation from Knowledge escalate. So, both oppression and conspiracy behaviors are expressions of proto-depression, or prolonged depression from the continuous failure of one’s ideas about one’s self and others and what is in other’s abilities and interests. And That’s because evolution insured that we would remain optimistic to survive in the face of incredible stresses when continued existence is no longer rational. Exhaust all possible explanation for rational choice prior to default to malincentives (conspiracy of intent). In most cases it’s conspiracy of organizational incentives, conspiracy of common interests, conspiracy of genetic bias (such as the ashkenazi adoption of the female strategy), ignorance, error, or stupidity. If you exhaust all of the possible rational incentives then only malincentives remain. But rare. Never attribute to intention what is the product of either incentives, ignorance, or stupidity. Humans by and large justify what they do post hoc with a story. Humans by ad large pursue self interests that they can justify with a story afterward. Because that’s what our brains do. And frankly the more responsibility you have, for the more people, for more risk, the more you have to compromise between different sets of unacceptable externalities that are the cost of getting whatever it s you’re doing done with the resources available, time available, people you have to work with, and incentives you can provide. Most organizational failure that we interpret as conspiracy is the result of people in organizations that are producing malincentives by accident rather than by design. Most groups that engage in evil are doing so because they consider what they’re doing a good. As I’m fond of saying, serial killers justify what they do, and the mothers of serial killers justify what they’ve done, and the fathers of serial killers are happy to throw away the key if not pull the lever. So if it is other than a conspiracy of intention, our problem is not to wish for better humans, but to rule with the humans we have, using the law and incentives to prevent malincentives.

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • The State as A Monopoly on Violence Is Evidently False.

    Apr 24, 2020, 2:11 PM   The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace. The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.