Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Irony of American, German, and Russian Differences

    [T]he Irony: The Americans tell the truth and are wrong and utopian. The Germans say nothing and are pragmatic but uncorrupted. The Russians lie and are right but corrupt. It’s one of those absurdities. I mean, why is it that some group can’t be both Truthful, Right, and Uncorrupt? Once you understand it, you just want to jump off a bridge with frustration. The irony is painful. -Curt

  • The Fallacy Of Conventional Gender Wisdom

    (by Eli Harman) [T]he conventional wisdom is that women are selfless and generous and that men are selfish and acquisitive. But this conclusion is exactly backwards, because it is formed without looking at opportunity costs. Women’s socialism is in fact profoundly selfish and self-interested, given their risk-aversion and security seeking. Liberty and independence are risky and therefore costly and women are – by and large – not willing to take those risks or bear those costs, even to achieve the greater success it holds out as a possibility. Men are more willing to risk personal failure and destitution in order to obtain wealth and success, or to endure them stoically in order to create a prosperous society for all. Another common misconception is that men are practical and women sentimental. But this one, too, misses the mark. A common trope one finds in history and fiction is men going off to war and women pleading with them not to. This is held out as an example of women’s noble sentiments vs. men’s ruthless pragmatism. But the explanation is actually very nearly reversed. War, even at its most necessary and helpful, represents (with certainty) taking personal risks and bearing personal costs, in order to obtain a shared (but uncertain) benefit (victory, security, etc…) Women, as the ultimate egoistic pragmatists, are simply less likely to see this as a worthwhile bargain, even a degree removed from the most severe costs and risks. It is men’s idealism and altruism which leads them to strike it. Women *appear* more generous because they selfishly appeal to men’s generosity. They *appear* more sentimental because they make pragmatic appeals to men’s sentimentality. But the reality is otherwise.

  • The Fallacy Of Conventional Gender Wisdom

    (by Eli Harman) [T]he conventional wisdom is that women are selfless and generous and that men are selfish and acquisitive. But this conclusion is exactly backwards, because it is formed without looking at opportunity costs. Women’s socialism is in fact profoundly selfish and self-interested, given their risk-aversion and security seeking. Liberty and independence are risky and therefore costly and women are – by and large – not willing to take those risks or bear those costs, even to achieve the greater success it holds out as a possibility. Men are more willing to risk personal failure and destitution in order to obtain wealth and success, or to endure them stoically in order to create a prosperous society for all. Another common misconception is that men are practical and women sentimental. But this one, too, misses the mark. A common trope one finds in history and fiction is men going off to war and women pleading with them not to. This is held out as an example of women’s noble sentiments vs. men’s ruthless pragmatism. But the explanation is actually very nearly reversed. War, even at its most necessary and helpful, represents (with certainty) taking personal risks and bearing personal costs, in order to obtain a shared (but uncertain) benefit (victory, security, etc…) Women, as the ultimate egoistic pragmatists, are simply less likely to see this as a worthwhile bargain, even a degree removed from the most severe costs and risks. It is men’s idealism and altruism which leads them to strike it. Women *appear* more generous because they selfishly appeal to men’s generosity. They *appear* more sentimental because they make pragmatic appeals to men’s sentimentality. But the reality is otherwise.

  • La única forma de eliminar el estado y construir libertad

    Original Article by Curt Doolittle: http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/23/the-only-means-of-eliminating-the-state-and-constructing-liberty/Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. [L]a única forma de eliminar al estado, es eliminar la existencia de demanda para que éste exista. Para eliminar al estado, debemos primero construir instituciones que provean los servicios estatales sin el aprovechamiento injusto endémico e inherente a la función estatal. El estado provee sólo estos servicios:

    1. La asignación o reparto de la propiedad y de los derechos de propiedad y sus medios de transferencia.
    2. Medios para resolver todas las diferencias que lleven a conflictos.
    3. Medios para construir y proteger bienes comunes del aprovechamiento injusto.
    4. Medios para la exclusión de asignaciones competitivas, medios de resolución y medios de construcción.

    Los únicas formas de proveer estos servicios sin la existencia del estado, es construir instituciones que no requieran de la figura estatal.

    1. La ley del no parasitismo positivamente expresada como “propiedad en todo”, el derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, EN VEZ de una burocracia profesional independiente- por ejemplo: la cuarta ola.
    2. Un mercado de bienes que consista en casas de bienes e intereses en las cuales los contratos que no sean monopolios son negociados para la creación de bienes.
    3. Una milicia universal (o cuasi universal), cuidadores, de emergencia y rescate, para poder participar en el mercado de bienes- la participación debe ser ganada, incluso para proteger a la milicia de los males del parasitismo.

    Un estado burocrático entonces, es evidencia del fracaso de construir instituciones necesarias para la provisión de servicios que permitan a grupos competir contra otros.- [F]ukuyama no ha identificado la alternativa a la socialdemocracia ni ha identificado la naturaleza transitoria del monopolio institucional como entidades necesarias para la construcciones de bienes previos al desarrollo de un mercado competitivo para la provisión de esos bienes. El fracasó en dar con la diferencia entre investigación y desarrollo de costosas instituciones de bienes., y la conversión de esas instituciones monopolistas en instituciones no-monopolistas que excluyen a las otras instituciones con las que tengan conflictos, toda vez que dichas instituciones compitan en la provisión efectiva de servicios. El fin la historia es bastante distinto a lo que Fukuyama imaginó y lo que la academia (como una forma de iglesia con fines de lucro) evoca y desea. Hay una alternativa a los gobiernos monopolistas, si no una alternativa al monopolio de los derechos de propiedad articulada como “propiedad en todo”. Fukuyama es un producto de la academia y la historia a pesar de sus intereses intelectuales honestos- porque Fukuyama no es un producto de la economía y la ley: economía política, él es perdonable así como lo son también los estudiantes de la historia, de mirar hacia atrás, contemplando otros patrones distintos sin el entendimiento de las propiedades causales de la cooperación humana y la necesidad de cada vez mayores y más complejos métodos de cálculo. [C]omo defensores de la libertad, es nuestra función, nuestra misión el proveer soluciones superiores al problema de la cooperación a una escala que podamos llamar “gubernamental”, por la invención, defensa, demanda, y rebelión en búsqueda de instituciones formales que prohiban la tiranía y preserven nuestra tasa occidental de innovación, al prohibir todo parasitismo (aprovechamiento injusto) en cualquier momento.

    1. El el requerimiento universal de la productividad es el anverso de la prohibición de parasitismo.
    2. La institucionalización de esa regla como derechos de propiedad que abarquen la “propiedad en todo”.
    3. El derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, jurado, decir la verdad, restitución, castigo y exclusión (encarcelamiento).
    4. La familia nuclear (y quizá no la nuclear absoluta) es el primer bien en el cual la competencia de género se resuelva fuera de la producción de otros bienes.
    5. Un monarca hereditario (jefe de estado) con poder de veto, pero sin poder positivo.
    6. Un set de cámaras que representen a las distintas clases, pobladas por selección aleatoria, quienes actúan como jurados, en la selección de contratos propuestos para duración anual, y con prohibiciones específicas de la construcción legal.
    7. La inclusión de bienes informativos en derechos de propiedad y por ende (a) el requerimiento de tener un discurso honesto de derechos propietarios y científicos en la materia de bienes. (b) la necesidad de un lenguaje operativo. (c ) la prohibición de la transferencia del compromiso y (e) la responsabilidad de los jurados (representantes y votantes) por sus acciones de parte de otros.

    La única defensa es el requerimiento de producción, el derecho consuetudinario, el jurado, la verdad, la universalidad, la responsabilidad universal, y los mercados competitivos. Esto produce la menor cantidad de oportunidades para aprovechamiento injusto y la privatización de todas la fuerzas en un mercado de producción de bienes y servicios necesarios para poder sobrevivir y reproducirnos. El aseguramiento contra el error y el fracaso y el límite de tener un niño a aquellos incapaces de reproducirse solventa el problema de la caridad sin el problema de la eugenesia inmoral.   Curt Doolittle Kiev, Ucrania Instituto Propietarista

  • La única forma de eliminar el estado y construir libertad

    Original Article by Curt Doolittle: http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/23/the-only-means-of-eliminating-the-state-and-constructing-liberty/Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. [L]a única forma de eliminar al estado, es eliminar la existencia de demanda para que éste exista. Para eliminar al estado, debemos primero construir instituciones que provean los servicios estatales sin el aprovechamiento injusto endémico e inherente a la función estatal. El estado provee sólo estos servicios:

    1. La asignación o reparto de la propiedad y de los derechos de propiedad y sus medios de transferencia.
    2. Medios para resolver todas las diferencias que lleven a conflictos.
    3. Medios para construir y proteger bienes comunes del aprovechamiento injusto.
    4. Medios para la exclusión de asignaciones competitivas, medios de resolución y medios de construcción.

    Los únicas formas de proveer estos servicios sin la existencia del estado, es construir instituciones que no requieran de la figura estatal.

    1. La ley del no parasitismo positivamente expresada como “propiedad en todo”, el derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, EN VEZ de una burocracia profesional independiente- por ejemplo: la cuarta ola.
    2. Un mercado de bienes que consista en casas de bienes e intereses en las cuales los contratos que no sean monopolios son negociados para la creación de bienes.
    3. Una milicia universal (o cuasi universal), cuidadores, de emergencia y rescate, para poder participar en el mercado de bienes- la participación debe ser ganada, incluso para proteger a la milicia de los males del parasitismo.

    Un estado burocrático entonces, es evidencia del fracaso de construir instituciones necesarias para la provisión de servicios que permitan a grupos competir contra otros.- [F]ukuyama no ha identificado la alternativa a la socialdemocracia ni ha identificado la naturaleza transitoria del monopolio institucional como entidades necesarias para la construcciones de bienes previos al desarrollo de un mercado competitivo para la provisión de esos bienes. El fracasó en dar con la diferencia entre investigación y desarrollo de costosas instituciones de bienes., y la conversión de esas instituciones monopolistas en instituciones no-monopolistas que excluyen a las otras instituciones con las que tengan conflictos, toda vez que dichas instituciones compitan en la provisión efectiva de servicios. El fin la historia es bastante distinto a lo que Fukuyama imaginó y lo que la academia (como una forma de iglesia con fines de lucro) evoca y desea. Hay una alternativa a los gobiernos monopolistas, si no una alternativa al monopolio de los derechos de propiedad articulada como “propiedad en todo”. Fukuyama es un producto de la academia y la historia a pesar de sus intereses intelectuales honestos- porque Fukuyama no es un producto de la economía y la ley: economía política, él es perdonable así como lo son también los estudiantes de la historia, de mirar hacia atrás, contemplando otros patrones distintos sin el entendimiento de las propiedades causales de la cooperación humana y la necesidad de cada vez mayores y más complejos métodos de cálculo. [C]omo defensores de la libertad, es nuestra función, nuestra misión el proveer soluciones superiores al problema de la cooperación a una escala que podamos llamar “gubernamental”, por la invención, defensa, demanda, y rebelión en búsqueda de instituciones formales que prohiban la tiranía y preserven nuestra tasa occidental de innovación, al prohibir todo parasitismo (aprovechamiento injusto) en cualquier momento.

    1. El el requerimiento universal de la productividad es el anverso de la prohibición de parasitismo.
    2. La institucionalización de esa regla como derechos de propiedad que abarquen la “propiedad en todo”.
    3. El derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, jurado, decir la verdad, restitución, castigo y exclusión (encarcelamiento).
    4. La familia nuclear (y quizá no la nuclear absoluta) es el primer bien en el cual la competencia de género se resuelva fuera de la producción de otros bienes.
    5. Un monarca hereditario (jefe de estado) con poder de veto, pero sin poder positivo.
    6. Un set de cámaras que representen a las distintas clases, pobladas por selección aleatoria, quienes actúan como jurados, en la selección de contratos propuestos para duración anual, y con prohibiciones específicas de la construcción legal.
    7. La inclusión de bienes informativos en derechos de propiedad y por ende (a) el requerimiento de tener un discurso honesto de derechos propietarios y científicos en la materia de bienes. (b) la necesidad de un lenguaje operativo. (c ) la prohibición de la transferencia del compromiso y (e) la responsabilidad de los jurados (representantes y votantes) por sus acciones de parte de otros.

    La única defensa es el requerimiento de producción, el derecho consuetudinario, el jurado, la verdad, la universalidad, la responsabilidad universal, y los mercados competitivos. Esto produce la menor cantidad de oportunidades para aprovechamiento injusto y la privatización de todas la fuerzas en un mercado de producción de bienes y servicios necesarios para poder sobrevivir y reproducirnos. El aseguramiento contra el error y el fracaso y el límite de tener un niño a aquellos incapaces de reproducirse solventa el problema de la caridad sin el problema de la eugenesia inmoral.   Curt Doolittle Kiev, Ucrania Instituto Propietarista

  • (Follow-up) The Failed Book of Athenian Truth, The Successful Book of Jerusalem Deceit.

    —Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

    [A]ctually I’m not anti-anything (and certainly not anti-gene pool, just the opposite) other than theft and deceit, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me. Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience. The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt. While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’. These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.

  • (Follow-up) The Failed Book of Athenian Truth, The Successful Book of Jerusalem Deceit.

    —Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

    [A]ctually I’m not anti-anything (and certainly not anti-gene pool, just the opposite) other than theft and deceit, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me. Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience. The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt. While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’. These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.

  • I Don’t Do Anti-Semitism. I do Truth and Rule of Law

    [A]gain. Please do not go all anti jewish on me. I dont do racism. it’s tedious and useless. I know how the germans failed. i know how the french failed. I know how we anglos failed. I don’t think the jews of the 19th and 20th centuries knew what they were doing any more than the Germans, French and Anglos knew what they were doing. We all work with the frames of reference we get from our cultures. I want to know how to accomplish the elimination of lying in the social sciences, and law, what we accomplished with the elimination of mysticism and the elimination of rationalism. To do that I must understand the technique. Did Plato know what he was doing? I am not sure. Did Socrates? I am not sure Did Aristotle = I think he did. Did Smith and Hume? I think they did. Did Jefferson, yes. Did Marx, I don’t think so. Did Adorno and crew? I have no idea but according to him, not really. Did Rand and Rothbard – rand maybe, rothbard I don’t think so. The technique of the talmud is quite simple: duplicity. The question is, why does it work so well?

  • I Don’t Do Anti-Semitism. I do Truth and Rule of Law

    [A]gain. Please do not go all anti jewish on me. I dont do racism. it’s tedious and useless. I know how the germans failed. i know how the french failed. I know how we anglos failed. I don’t think the jews of the 19th and 20th centuries knew what they were doing any more than the Germans, French and Anglos knew what they were doing. We all work with the frames of reference we get from our cultures. I want to know how to accomplish the elimination of lying in the social sciences, and law, what we accomplished with the elimination of mysticism and the elimination of rationalism. To do that I must understand the technique. Did Plato know what he was doing? I am not sure. Did Socrates? I am not sure Did Aristotle = I think he did. Did Smith and Hume? I think they did. Did Jefferson, yes. Did Marx, I don’t think so. Did Adorno and crew? I have no idea but according to him, not really. Did Rand and Rothbard – rand maybe, rothbard I don’t think so. The technique of the talmud is quite simple: duplicity. The question is, why does it work so well?

  • Tucker as a Rationalist In The Age of Science

    [N]ote: I’m not anti-Tucker. I see him as a very good man with good intentions but part of a prior generation’s thinking whose time has long passed, and methods have long failed. But I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a good man with good intentions. I like him quite a bit and always have.

    —“The media is a business meaning that they can’t coerce you, tax you, bomb you, deport you, kill you. All they can do is write articles and make shows that sell advertising. And you are willing to celebrate a would-be dictator because he foils some reporters???”—Jeffrey A. Tucker

    (a) Regarding the media, are you rationalizing what the media can do, or are you relying upon empirical evidence of what the media can do? Because the evidence is that they create opinion in sufficient voters to do precisely what you say they cannot. (b) I have a hard time seeing the difference between the current president and a trump presidency or any other presidency in the absence of rule of law. And given the evidence of (a), its logical to prefer a president who will continue to undermine (a). Liberty is produced by rule of law(universal application) demanding the total prohibition on parasitism(imposition of costs) in the private (morality) and public (liberty) spheres of action, constructed by individual enforcement of norms, individual enforcement of law under universal standing, organized enforcement of the law under an independent judiciary, and organized prevention of usurpation of that law by the militia. And liberty is (again, empirically not just rationally) a preference of and only of a limited number of individuals in limited family structures, with limited cultural traditions, with limited legal traditions. All others systematically seek to undermine it in every polity on earth. Man was not kept down and oppressed by his betters. Man was incrementally civilized by his betters, much against his will. He was forced to abandon murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by asymmetry, fraud by indirection, fraud by obscurantism, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, and conquest. By being forced to abandon all unproductive and parasitic actions, the only venue left for man was the burden of participation in the market through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange free of imposition of cost by externality. But the arts of production are difficult, and the arts of lying, defrauding, cheating, stealing, blackmailing, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy are much easier. Liberty requires meritocracy and meritocracy is not a matter of belief it is a mater of ability. Genes matter. Open immigration is empirically destructive. While we can estimate the decline in anglo intelligence since 1850, we can measure the decline in French intelligence due to immigration just since 1950. The Flynn effect can be reversed through degradation of the gene pool. It is the gene pool that establishes the degree of liberty, the degree of truth telling, the degree of productivity, the norms and traditions of a polity. It is a romantic amateurism to pursue liberty as a philosophical choice – a religion or cult – versus an empirical problem to be solved. The age of rationalization has ended just as the age of mysticism ended. The current era is one of science: requiring both internal consistency(logical and rational) and external correspondence(empirical) as well as existentially possible (operationally articulable) and morality (voluntary transfers) bounded by full accounting (of all costs to all capital) and parsimony (defined limits of falsification). Time for the adult version of liberty: Aristocratic(meritocratic) Egalitarian(meritocratic) Eugenic(meritocratic) Nomocracy(rule of law) assisted by a market for the production of commons using the exception of legal dissent, rather than the requirement of universal assent by majority rule. Trump is a tool of progress. That is all. Liberty requires progress. Moreover it requires we repress the rates of reproduction of the underclasses who will not and cannot participate in liberty.