Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    [I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy or Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Who Pees Outside More: Conservative Or Liberal Women?

    Conservative women at campsites.

    Liberal women drunk on the street.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Who-pees-outside-more-conservative-or-liberal-women

  • If I Wanted To Would It Be Legal To Build A Multi Thousand Acre Lake On All Private Property?

    There is a long tradition of slough, stream, pond and lake building, and it’s very hard to find criticisms of it unless you violate one of the three four principles:

    1. It’s close to an existing stream, pond, lake, that could be in any way impacted by the presence of a competing ecosystem.
    2. It requires diverting water flow from another source over which water rights are already tightly regulated (everything is). This is usually a big no-no. So how would you get that much water to this location?
    3. It requires human maintenance to survive and would scar the landscape if you failed to complete or maintain it. (a possibility in Texas).
    4. You plan to use it for raising some kind of fish or animal that could generate competition, change, or pollution in the local ecosystem.

    However, (and simple research will help you) almost all principalities will benefit from the creation of a recreational or wild lake.

    Where I lived in Western Washington the idea is to maintain ecosystems for animals but rearranging land use is just fine. (In some progressive states these departments attract … nutcases, not people seeking to preserve balance. )

    https://www.quora.com/If-I-wanted-to-would-it-be-legal-to-build-a-multi-thousand-acre-lake-on-all-private-property

  • Is The World Better Off With Or Without Facebook?

    I think the world is better off for facebook if only for its use in assisting in revolutions.

    I think quora WAS making the world better off before it hired …. idiots …. to post fake questions and generate page responses.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-better-off-with-or-without-Facebook

  • How Would An Anarcho Capitalist Society Look Like, In The Long Run?

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-Anarcho-Capitalist-society-look-like-in-the-long-run

  • Who Are The Best Examples Of Truly Citizens Of The World?

    People who act locally, and think locally, rather than impose costs of their fantasies upon others?

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-best-examples-of-truly-citizens-of-the-world

  • If You Could Posses A Super Power, What Would It Be?

    Sending people to Hell.

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-posses-a-super-power-what-would-it-be

  • What Is The Most Powerful Position In Government?

    The Chairman of the Central Bank. There is no question about it.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-powerful-position-in-government

  • If I Wanted To Would It Be Legal To Build A Multi Thousand Acre Lake On All Private Property?

    There is a long tradition of slough, stream, pond and lake building, and it’s very hard to find criticisms of it unless you violate one of the three four principles:

    1. It’s close to an existing stream, pond, lake, that could be in any way impacted by the presence of a competing ecosystem.
    2. It requires diverting water flow from another source over which water rights are already tightly regulated (everything is). This is usually a big no-no. So how would you get that much water to this location?
    3. It requires human maintenance to survive and would scar the landscape if you failed to complete or maintain it. (a possibility in Texas).
    4. You plan to use it for raising some kind of fish or animal that could generate competition, change, or pollution in the local ecosystem.

    However, (and simple research will help you) almost all principalities will benefit from the creation of a recreational or wild lake.

    Where I lived in Western Washington the idea is to maintain ecosystems for animals but rearranging land use is just fine. (In some progressive states these departments attract … nutcases, not people seeking to preserve balance. )

    https://www.quora.com/If-I-wanted-to-would-it-be-legal-to-build-a-multi-thousand-acre-lake-on-all-private-property

  • Why Is Neo-progressivism So Reliant Upon The Re-appropriation Of Marxist Doctrine And Critical Theory?

    1) Conservatism must speak in historical, moral, allegorical, and religious language because if stated ratio-scientifically it’s reducible to ‘eugenics in everything’, just as all of western civilization has been since the Kurgan invasions. So conservatives do not lie they just do not speak the truth.

    2) Neo-Liberalism is just an attempt to turn america into the levant or south america so that an upper managerial caste can form and profit from administration of a vast underclass, just as the cosmopolitans did in eastern Europe before migrating to the states. They cannot say this. And there is no way to speak truthfully. Since they failed at pseudo-rational marxist religion, pseudoscientific economics and social science, and just gave up advocacy and started attacking western civilization at every level (cultural marxism / postmodernism / the frankfurt school).

    Democracy creates incentives to lie. Rule of law (constitutionalism) creates incentives to tell the truth. But conservatives don’t tell the truth, and neo-liberals just lie.

    Humans are vastly unequal and our evolution has been 5x that of the difference between humans and chimpanzees over the past 30k years alone. These differences are largely visible as differences in rates of maturity, depth of maturity, and sexual dimorphism, and the relative sizes of the lower and upper classes.

    This means that conservatism is true but a large domestic empire is impossible. It means that progressivism is false, and that a large domestic empire will produced colored casts very much like india with little or no rotation.

    Everyone lies.

    The only solution is to break up the empire and continue the BIG SORT.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-neo-progressivism-so-reliant-upon-the-re-appropriation-of-Marxist-doctrine-and-Critical-Theory