Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Unpacking “Democracy Requires Homogeneity”

    October 13th, 2018 4:18 PM UNPACKING “DEMOCRACY REQUIRES HOMOGENEITY” by Richard Nikoley

    —“Markets allow us to cooperate on means despite disparate ends. Democracy, only on same ends. Democracy requires homogeneity.”— CD

    Let me unpack this a bit for those unfamiliar. Markets, or trade, is inherently win-win or the trade doesn’t happen and there is no market. When you buy a pound of apples for $1, it’s because you want the apples more than you want the dollar and the tradesman wants the dollar more than he wants the pound of apples. This happens billions of times a day, globally. How many trades do you do in a single day, on average? 5-10, maybe? Multiply that by 7 Billion. That’s upwards of 70 billion trades daily and as a win-win, that’s a lot of happiness. We should be thankful. Moreover, markets are typically ideologically, racially, gender, culturally, etc. agnostic or neutral. It’s the great mediator. Traders tend not to care a bit who the other person is or what they believe, and yet they serve each other. How amazing. How fortunate we are. Now, contrast that with democracy. Democracy is winner take all. Either you keep your dollar AND get his pound of apples, or he keeps his apples and gets your dollar. It’s windfall win-lose. It only tends to work reasonably well in homogenous populations or institutions. Think Japan and Scandinavian counties (as they used to be before the Muslim influx). Relatively small populations of largely the same race, culture, national history. Or, consider a large public company where directors are elected quasi-democratically by shareholders, but everyone is more or less on the same page of making capital gains and paying dividends. Democracy does not scale to something like a European Union or a United States. Totally dumb idea, especially extending the franchise to those with no stake (no property, no financial assets, no business concern with employees, etc.).

  • “ARGUMENT AD UTERUM”

    October 13th, 2018 5:40 PM “ARGUMENT AD UTERUM” LOLZ By Giego Caleiro

    I hereby coin the term: “Argument Ad Uterum” A classical form of fallacious argument in which a fertile female, often a bipolar girlfriend, a feminist, or a pawn of leftwing ideology (NPC) threatens self-removal from a group, discussion, or event, as a means to socially sanction or control that which she, or anyone in the discussion, cannot argue against by legitimate means.

  • “ARGUMENT AD UTERUM”

    October 13th, 2018 5:40 PM “ARGUMENT AD UTERUM” LOLZ By Giego Caleiro

    I hereby coin the term: “Argument Ad Uterum” A classical form of fallacious argument in which a fertile female, often a bipolar girlfriend, a feminist, or a pawn of leftwing ideology (NPC) threatens self-removal from a group, discussion, or event, as a means to socially sanction or control that which she, or anyone in the discussion, cannot argue against by legitimate means.

  • The Scientist Is “the One Who Knocks”

    October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

    —“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

    [W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.

  • Patterns of Shared Identity Are Implied by Terminology

    October 12th, 2018 9:18 AM EUROPEAN KINSHIP AND FAMILY SYSTEMS A “Cognition and Practice” Approach to an Aspect of European Kinship Patrick Heady First Published May 6, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117707184

    Abstract Despite the long history of kinship studies, we still lack agreed theories capable of explaining the connection between terminological systems and kinship practice. This article argues for a cognitive approach centering on two distinct but complementary aspects of identity. It is argued that patterns of shared identity are implied by terminology and combine with other factors to motivate practice in a feedback loop which transmits influences between terminological systems and political and economic institutions. The argument is illustrated by statistical and historical analyses of an aspect of European kinship.

    link:  journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069397117707184

  • The Scientist Is “the One Who Knocks”

    October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

    —“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

    [W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.

  • Patterns of Shared Identity Are Implied by Terminology

    October 12th, 2018 9:18 AM EUROPEAN KINSHIP AND FAMILY SYSTEMS A “Cognition and Practice” Approach to an Aspect of European Kinship Patrick Heady First Published May 6, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117707184

    Abstract Despite the long history of kinship studies, we still lack agreed theories capable of explaining the connection between terminological systems and kinship practice. This article argues for a cognitive approach centering on two distinct but complementary aspects of identity. It is argued that patterns of shared identity are implied by terminology and combine with other factors to motivate practice in a feedback loop which transmits influences between terminological systems and political and economic institutions. The argument is illustrated by statistical and historical analyses of an aspect of European kinship.

    link:  journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069397117707184

  • The Prussian Order (martial) vs Others

    October 12th, 2018 2:51 PM THE PRUSSIAN ORDER (MARTIAL) VS OTHERS [R]ussia longs for the Prussian Order but cannot produce it – loyalty for russians is a matter of family not state. Germany has been castigated for it, and broken to prevent its revival. Britain virtue-spirals her pretense of superiority to it meanwhile dying off after 500 years of rule. France is it’s feminine enemy to the last. America produces it and would maintain it if not for underclass immigration and population replacement. Some of us simply prefer the martial established male order. some of us the commercial ascendent male order, and some of us the cult feminine order. It’s semitic universalism in french postmodern and jewish marxist, russian orthodox, and western utopianism that resists it. Greek, Roman, German, British, American, Australian Masculinism of the Militia. Russia has missed her window when she allowed the jewish bolsheviks to kill her own. France lost it in 1789 when she killed her own. There is a small chance that we can restore germany if we leave her to her own devices. There is a good chance we can restore the british empire if we make the right choices. But that choice will come at the point of a gun. Therefore “SO BE IT.”

  • To Understand Something, Attack It Exhaustively and Mercilessly

    October 12th, 2018 2:24 PM

    [I]f you want to understand something, attack it exhaustively and mercilessly until you can’t attack anything that remains. There is always a grain of truth in there somewhere under the layers of value laden virtue signals and fraud. 😉

  • A Question About Hoppe, and Private States as Corporations

    October 12th, 2018 1:56 PM (good read for libertarians esp, but all in general.)

    —“Hey Curt, I have a question about a subject I’ve been rolling around in my mind for a while, and you said you’re always happy to answer questions, so here goes: I’m starting from Hoppe’s incentives-based analysis which showed a monarchy is preferable to a democracy when running a State. What’s been bugging me about that, is how do you prevent the fall and decline of a new monarchy, just like the way all other monarchies collapsed?”—

    [W]ell, monarchies collapsed because of 1) gunpowder crushing the value of professional warriors who were committed to preservation of the hierarchy, 2) the conversion from agrarian production to trade as the source of wealth, and therefore the rise of middle/upper-middle class power and influence, 3) the failure to adapt to that power change at the rate it was occurring, 4) the french conquest of europe forcing the unification of germany, 5) the use of democracy by the middle class to seize power from the monarchies, by extending the franchise, 6) the communist-socialist movement, attempt to overthrow middle class rule and 7) the american prevention of the restoration of the monarchies after the first and second world wars: “There never would have been a hitler if a Hohenzollern had been on the throne.” I mean. Monarchies are still extant where americans(anglos) or communists(jews) didn’t destroy them. And those are the most successful countries. America wold not be in current position if she had a constitutional monarchy instead of a bureaucratic oligarchical presidency.

    —“Since there wasn’t any model I knew of in history (and that’s perhaps a dark spot you could illuminate) which answered this issue, I had to synthesize a new model, injecting some ideas from Moldbug’s formalism. “—

    As an aside, Most men, I would give the same advice: “Read more and deduce from a position of ignorance less.”

    —“Since the base rationale of running a State as a monarchy is keeping it in trust and for profit why not literally run the monarchy as a corporation? The king can be both the owner and CEO, the aristocracy can be the board of directors, and instead of treating the people like subjects, you treat them like employees, which keeps them more vested in the well being of the organization, aligned with its purposes, and leaves more room for meritocratic advancement.”—

    I guess I’m confused but that was Hoppe’s point right? That a monarchy was a privately held corporation and the territory and capital its assets and the people could move between these territories, and monarchies competed for productive talent (the way current states compete for rent seekers). Therefore the monarchy would have intergenerational incentives to preserve and accumulate capital (mutliple-producing-commons), where ‘rentiers’ would try to (and did) consume all that capital – and are now consuming even genetic capital. The problem is the difference between via-positiva (government producing commons), and via-negativa (law producing limitations on actions). As you grow from small to large the monarch like a ceo must distribute the labor of governance until his only remaining function is ‘judge of last resort’ in matters that cannot be resolved by others: usually great questions of the day, and whether to go to war. So the monarchies (france in particular) that modernized (Prussia, most germany, everyone other than france and italy which were endemically corrupt), were able to produce professional administrators (ministers) and bureaucracies (bureaucrats), that worked in the people and monarchy’s interests – and were successful. But as scale increases this becomes increasingly harder. So many small kingdoms (market) that trade is preferable to one large empire that manages (monopoly), except in war, but napoleon and russia set off the wars of expansion, with germany (wwii) trying to reverse that conquest of central europe (german civilization). The problem is in producing those organizations that perform the functions of investor in competitive commons and industries, justice, treasury, insurer of last resort. And the argument is that privately held services do a better job than do bureaucracies because bureaucracies are not subject to market competition. However, like all start ups, it may require a investment in producing the capability before the service is capable of functioning in the market. So the optimum appears to be in creating a monopoly bureaucracy until it is competent, then privatizing that industry by selling it to investors, while retaining majority interest (in control of it). Ergo. yes private market organizations that compete for the accumulation of intergenerational capital are in the long term in the interests of the people within them, just as collectivist corporations that constitute monopolies that consume all capital and intergenerational compaital are in the long term againsts the intersets of the people in them.

    —“It also seems rather conductive to promoting a “libertarian social order”.”—

    Well that’s his point now, isn’t it? 😉

    —“There are also historical small scale examples where this was attempted in the form of company towns or campuses run by corporations, which as far as I know usually turned up pretty well.”–

    That’s libertarian nonsense. The only such organizations exist as border regions under the protection of strong states. No examples in history exist otherwise. Fringe players assume risks in order to settle border territories and hold them in the State’s name against settle ment by competitors, and in exchange pay little or no taxes because of the service they are providing the state. This same activity is not possible without state protection. this is why all libertarianism is nonsense: one holds territory because one can fight to hold it from competitors. That is reality. Economies make it possible to afford the men, resources, and tools to fight to hold that territory, and use the surpluses for consumption and capital accumulation.

    —“I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the idea, and if there is any literature on the model”—

    Well now you have them. 😉 Your intuition was on but I think you missed hoppe’s point. Hoppe wanted to create ‘free cities’ of germany like rothbard wanted to create ‘free cities’ of ukraine. The similarity is that germany and ukraine were territories under the protection of great powers. And that is the only reason free cities were allowed: to hold (reserve) territory in the name of a power. Hoppe and rothbard both practice the same denialism: war is the most profitable industry for the winner. The military comes first before all other commons. The military makes possible rule of law. Rule of law makes possible commerce. Commerce makes possible wealth. Wealth attracts population and reproduction and trade continuously, and the military capacity and legal capacity must keep pace with the increasing demand by others to conquer and tax that territory.

    —“Keep up the excellent work, I really enjoy your posts”—

    Hugs. Let’s fight the good fight. 😉