Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Can We Argue That Improving Dispensation Of Social Justice And Social Equity Has A Positive Linear Relationship With The Ability Of A Society To Participate And Benefit From A Free Market?

    PAINFUL TRUTH

    You can’t define Social Justice, and you probably can’t define Social Equity, or describe how either could come about. And if you did, you would of necessity define injustice and inequity.

    However;

    You can desire that your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political ‘status’ relative to others is more or less visible, and that you are more or less treated independent of that status by others. (Signaling or ‘Association and Cooperation’.)

    You can desire that you are not ignored, dismissed, outcast, or treated according to your reproductive value to others. (Genetic)

    You can desire that you are not avoided, ignored, dismissed, outcast or treated according to your behavior which is determined by your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.(Behavioral)

    You can desire that you are not prohibited from use of commons, regardless of your genetic, behavioral, social, economic and political value to others. (Social)

    You can desire that you are given dividends via taxation to compensate for your lower genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others. (Economic)

    You can desire that you are given political influence over the production of commons to compensate for your lower genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others. (Political)

    So you can desire many false (non-market) forms of compensation from others, or you can reap many true (market) forms of compensation from others.

    So far as I know (and we know, and we can demonstrate) you require:
    1) rule of law that protects property rights (self, spouse, kin, investments, assets, property) from involuntary transfer (we call this tort, common, or natural law) regardless of you genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.
    2) A military, police, sheriff, and judiciary that will not violate that rule of law, but enforce it regardless of you genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.
    3) A bureaucracy that acts according to rule of law and accepts no payment, advantage, or influence, to bias their decisions, and treats all individuals identically regardless of their genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.

    And the reason to make use of MARKETS, is because they produce greater wealth than all possible alternatives, and as such, provide us with means of providing the luxury of law, enforcement, and bureaucracy, and market, treating you as equally as your willingness to demonstrate market-normative behavior warrants, despite your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Can-we-argue-that-improving-dispensation-of-social-justice-and-social-equity-has-a-positive-linear-relationship-with-the-ability-of-a-society-to-participate-and-benefit-from-a-free-market

  • If The Usa Is The Leade Of The ‘free World’, Who Is The Leader Of The ‘muslim World’ Now?

    The current battle for leadership, if not the historical battle for leadership, is between the Saudis and the Iranians. The west’s preferences for leadership were 1) A Secular Turkey that led by commercial growth, 2) A Secular Iran that led by political power, 3) an expansion of the arab monarchies in the Saudi model that would reflect the old european monarchies.

    What the west did not want was the spread of communism, or the spread of fundamentalism.

    At present, Turkey has decided to abandon it’s secularization program, iran has sought imperial status by unification of syria, iraq, iran, and to compete on the world stage as a fundamentalist hostile power.

    So at present we see The Monarchies/Israel/the USA, against Iran/Turkey/Russia.

    All civilizations require at least one core state to limit the danger exposed by their own on the world stage, while defending their own on the world stage.

    The last civilization to ‘mature’ is islam, because it was the farthest developmentally behind AND had a devolutionary religion to preserve that backwardness.

    Africa was technologically farther behind, and economically more disadvantaged, but they are not held back by an institutionalized religion bent on preserving it’s power over society.

    https://www.quora.com/If-the-USA-is-the-leade-of-the-Free-World-who-is-the-leader-of-the-Muslim-world’-now

  • Could Nazism Be Described As A Right-wing Socialism?

    we do not have a vernacular term for the nazi political and economic model other than its an aesthetic authoritarian nationalism as opposed of universal communism.

    https://www.quora.com/Could-Nazism-be-described-as-a-right-wing-socialism

  • Can We Argue That Improving Dispensation Of Social Justice And Social Equity Has A Positive Linear Relationship With The Ability Of A Society To Participate And Benefit From A Free Market?

    PAINFUL TRUTH

    You can’t define Social Justice, and you probably can’t define Social Equity, or describe how either could come about. And if you did, you would of necessity define injustice and inequity.

    However;

    You can desire that your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political ‘status’ relative to others is more or less visible, and that you are more or less treated independent of that status by others. (Signaling or ‘Association and Cooperation’.)

    You can desire that you are not ignored, dismissed, outcast, or treated according to your reproductive value to others. (Genetic)

    You can desire that you are not avoided, ignored, dismissed, outcast or treated according to your behavior which is determined by your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.(Behavioral)

    You can desire that you are not prohibited from use of commons, regardless of your genetic, behavioral, social, economic and political value to others. (Social)

    You can desire that you are given dividends via taxation to compensate for your lower genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others. (Economic)

    You can desire that you are given political influence over the production of commons to compensate for your lower genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others. (Political)

    So you can desire many false (non-market) forms of compensation from others, or you can reap many true (market) forms of compensation from others.

    So far as I know (and we know, and we can demonstrate) you require:
    1) rule of law that protects property rights (self, spouse, kin, investments, assets, property) from involuntary transfer (we call this tort, common, or natural law) regardless of you genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.
    2) A military, police, sheriff, and judiciary that will not violate that rule of law, but enforce it regardless of you genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.
    3) A bureaucracy that acts according to rule of law and accepts no payment, advantage, or influence, to bias their decisions, and treats all individuals identically regardless of their genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.

    And the reason to make use of MARKETS, is because they produce greater wealth than all possible alternatives, and as such, provide us with means of providing the luxury of law, enforcement, and bureaucracy, and market, treating you as equally as your willingness to demonstrate market-normative behavior warrants, despite your genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and political value to others.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Can-we-argue-that-improving-dispensation-of-social-justice-and-social-equity-has-a-positive-linear-relationship-with-the-ability-of-a-society-to-participate-and-benefit-from-a-free-market

  • If The Usa Is The Leade Of The ‘free World’, Who Is The Leader Of The ‘muslim World’ Now?

    The current battle for leadership, if not the historical battle for leadership, is between the Saudis and the Iranians. The west’s preferences for leadership were 1) A Secular Turkey that led by commercial growth, 2) A Secular Iran that led by political power, 3) an expansion of the arab monarchies in the Saudi model that would reflect the old european monarchies.

    What the west did not want was the spread of communism, or the spread of fundamentalism.

    At present, Turkey has decided to abandon it’s secularization program, iran has sought imperial status by unification of syria, iraq, iran, and to compete on the world stage as a fundamentalist hostile power.

    So at present we see The Monarchies/Israel/the USA, against Iran/Turkey/Russia.

    All civilizations require at least one core state to limit the danger exposed by their own on the world stage, while defending their own on the world stage.

    The last civilization to ‘mature’ is islam, because it was the farthest developmentally behind AND had a devolutionary religion to preserve that backwardness.

    Africa was technologically farther behind, and economically more disadvantaged, but they are not held back by an institutionalized religion bent on preserving it’s power over society.

    https://www.quora.com/If-the-USA-is-the-leade-of-the-Free-World-who-is-the-leader-of-the-Muslim-world’-now

  • Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce

    Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber. In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION. Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction. When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements. The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null). Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.

  • Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce

    Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber. In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION. Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction. When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements. The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null). Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.

  • via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won

    via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it. Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this. Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything: 1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment. 2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you. This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist: * The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.” * The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment. * The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned. [In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.] At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions. “And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.” “The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

  • via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won

    via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it. Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this. Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything: 1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment. 2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you. This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist: * The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.” * The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment. * The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned. [In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.] At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions. “And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.” “The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

  • Holochain – Ceptr is pretty much ‘there’. I love that I don’t go thru holochain

    Holochain – Ceptr is pretty much ‘there’. I love that I don’t go thru holochain docs and say “well, that’s gonna fail” or, “well that’s not true”, or “well, that’s bordering on fraud”. Tho, I wish these people would include an architecture section on the site where they write pseudocode for basic transactions as they work thru the system, so that we don’t have to sit through hours of nonsense-jargon to deduce it, but … that said, I’m glad someone’s putting it together. My favorite part of Holochain is that are can write a GOOD UI, whereas with the various ‘coins’ it’s nearly impossible. Secondly, I like that it’s a freaking ACCOUNTING system (Journal) rather than a BTC style LEDGER. I mean. YOu can build grownup applications that way. ( I could for example, improve our product (oversing/runcible) dramatically by basing it on Holochain. it would dramatically simplify the backend architecture, which, for all intents and purposes, consists of a single enormous journal->ledger class. I played a very small part in the database replication era via MSFT. Replication and Federation have always been a problem. And as someone who builds tech for business and industry (usually user interface or marketing heavy) I like the problems the tech solves. Now, when they produce a js, php, or python app framework, that’s the biggie. Because it will make the tech available to the masses of programmers (vs engineers). Building ‘plumbing’ is really boring…. Frameworks let you build whatever you want. The first product that I “owned” (and only one) at microsoft was a suite of sample applications for developers. These were fully capable apps. And as I watched the universe of apps roll out, they were very frequently built on top of one of the sample apps or the libraries. Now, today we have app frameworks everywhere. And the data is pretty clear that the framework sells the technology. So I’ll say that again: frameworks sell technology….. ( Something I wasn’t able to get thru to MSFT server and tools mgmt or the VS team. Even though there were advocates there at the time. This was something Borland and other tech companies understood. And it’s something that the framework producers understand. )