Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    —“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

    (First Draft) [W]orking through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans. I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft. 1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation) 2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation) 3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading) 4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie) 5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie) 6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.

  • It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

    (First Draft) [W]orking through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans. I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft. 1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation) 2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation) 3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading) 4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie) 5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie) 6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Intelligence and Rule-Breaking Deception

    Smart kids lie 100% of the time? Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later. —I wonder if fear of reprisal factors into that experiment?— Curt Doolittle I actually think it’s **awareness of harm**. The child does not obey rules so much as the single rule of doing no harm. The dumber the child the less certain he is that he does no harm. The smarter the more certain he is that he does no harm. This matches the 5 or 6 personality type measures that most of the field relies upon: what we call many things but what I learned as ‘blame avoidance’ or ‘fear of harm’ or ‘fear of retaliation’. I have been criticized my entire life, from childhood to the present for having no respect for rules. I’ve said, I think since I was 13? that “rules are for people who need them”. we only need one rule: do no harm. Or more correctly: impose no cost upon property en toto of others. Or epistemologically stated: impose no cost except upon that proerty-en-toto which you know to be yours.

  • Intelligence and Rule-Breaking Deception

    Smart kids lie 100% of the time? Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later. —I wonder if fear of reprisal factors into that experiment?— Curt Doolittle I actually think it’s **awareness of harm**. The child does not obey rules so much as the single rule of doing no harm. The dumber the child the less certain he is that he does no harm. The smarter the more certain he is that he does no harm. This matches the 5 or 6 personality type measures that most of the field relies upon: what we call many things but what I learned as ‘blame avoidance’ or ‘fear of harm’ or ‘fear of retaliation’. I have been criticized my entire life, from childhood to the present for having no respect for rules. I’ve said, I think since I was 13? that “rules are for people who need them”. we only need one rule: do no harm. Or more correctly: impose no cost upon property en toto of others. Or epistemologically stated: impose no cost except upon that proerty-en-toto which you know to be yours.

  • Dear Fellow Intellectuals – Especially in Academia. Learn The Language of Economics.

    [T]he language of social science is now and will forever be, economics, just as the language of ratios is and will be mathematics. But when we say economics, we mean not monetary economics, but the terminology of costs, discounts and premiums. The effect of asymmetry of information. The language of equilibria. Acquisition, Inventory, Property-en-toto (demonstrated property) Incentive and retaliation Voluntary and moral exchange, involuntary and immoral takings. Cooperation, Boycott, and War. Acquisitions, Costs, and Full Accounting Opportunity costs, Transaction Costs Information and Asymmetry Portfolios and Equilibria Production and Reproduction, Genetic Pacification and Evolution The Intertemporal Division of reproductive Perception, Cognition, Labor, and Advocacy

  • Dear Fellow Intellectuals – Especially in Academia. Learn The Language of Economics.

    [T]he language of social science is now and will forever be, economics, just as the language of ratios is and will be mathematics. But when we say economics, we mean not monetary economics, but the terminology of costs, discounts and premiums. The effect of asymmetry of information. The language of equilibria. Acquisition, Inventory, Property-en-toto (demonstrated property) Incentive and retaliation Voluntary and moral exchange, involuntary and immoral takings. Cooperation, Boycott, and War. Acquisitions, Costs, and Full Accounting Opportunity costs, Transaction Costs Information and Asymmetry Portfolios and Equilibria Production and Reproduction, Genetic Pacification and Evolution The Intertemporal Division of reproductive Perception, Cognition, Labor, and Advocacy

  • Hierarchy Of Ethical Logics

    (worth repeating) [H]IERARCHY OF ETHICAL LOGICS 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..........Stories 2) Virtue Ethics.......(young)...............Biographies 3) Rule Ethics.........(inexperience adult)..Laws 4) Outcome Ethics......(experienced adult)...Science