Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • How Does The Republican Party Justify Its Desire To Legislate Morality, If The Core Of The Republican Belief Is In A Government That Should, When Possible, Not Interfere In The Lives Of Its Citizens?

    Common false argument.

    The conservative position is indo-european, and is easily visible in Greece: It is possible to resolve conflicts rationally. But we pay the penalty for our hubris if we assume we are wiser than we have evidence to prove.

    The point is not that we should not change, but that we are not wise enough to legislate change. 

    Turns out they’re right most of the  time.

    Conservatives do understand that the society is falling apart because of the decline of the absolute nuclear family. It may be NICER for some people to be single unwed parents, but those people emerge with different moral intuitions and different political preferences.

    It turns out that monogamous absolute nuclear marriage is perhaps the most important invention of western civilization.  And we’ve accidentally destroyed it as a social institution.

    In that sense, they aren’t ‘wrong’.   There is no free lunch. We aren’t that smart.

    If you can slowly demonstrate that something works without harm, then that’s fine. Conservatives will adopt it. If you engage in hubris, then you’re fighting the core principle of conservatism:

    We aren’t all that bright, and there are tremendous external consequences when we’re wrong.

    Like the liberal’s destruction of the black family, and the current expansion of that destruction of the nuclear family into the hispanic and lower class white communities.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Republican-Party-justify-its-desire-to-legislate-morality-if-the-core-of-the-Republican-belief-is-in-a-government-that-should-when-possible-not-interfere-in-the-lives-of-its-citizens

  • Do Rich People Ever Fly Coach?

    I fly coach if I’m paying for it and if my performance won’t suffer, and business or first class if I’m stressed and my performance will suffer, or if I’m working and want to circumvent the lines.  I don’t fly it to feel privileged.  Generally speaking, if you want to avoid the unwashed masses, stick to better airlines and pay slightly higher coach fees rather than just the lowest ticket price.

    Flying is very stressful on your body, on your senses, on your mind because of the high volume of background noise.   No amount of catering in first class will change that.  DRINKING WATER WILL.  First class and business class travel is less taxing on the body, and on the mind.

    First and Business class is largely for business travelers who must preserve their energy, because they cannot rest or relax when they land, and other people depend upon them being productive when they do land. It is not so much for the catering, which people who are wealthy come to simply expect, or ignore, but not feel special about.   If you travel a great deal airplane business class becomes your only place to relax, because it is the only space that is familiar. Sometimes we confuse the fact that the calm look on business class travellers’ faces is because they are more familiar with the experience of flying, not because the seats are so much better.

    READ THE MILLIONAIRE MIND: Rich people are rich because they work hard, and are patient. Most people cannot suppress their desire to ‘daydream’ or avoid work as long as people who are rich do (this is called time preference).  The rich outliers are statistical anomalies who have won a life lottery.  Most people who are balance sheet wealthy saved money or grew and sold businesses over very long periods of time, while training themselves to “appreciate present goods over future perfections”. 

    This is something that it is difficult to train humans to do, but it is possible. And as such, it is possible to train yourself to do.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-rich-people-ever-fly-coach

  • Do Rich People Ever Fly Coach?

    I fly coach if I’m paying for it and if my performance won’t suffer, and business or first class if I’m stressed and my performance will suffer, or if I’m working and want to circumvent the lines.  I don’t fly it to feel privileged.  Generally speaking, if you want to avoid the unwashed masses, stick to better airlines and pay slightly higher coach fees rather than just the lowest ticket price.

    Flying is very stressful on your body, on your senses, on your mind because of the high volume of background noise.   No amount of catering in first class will change that.  DRINKING WATER WILL.  First class and business class travel is less taxing on the body, and on the mind.

    First and Business class is largely for business travelers who must preserve their energy, because they cannot rest or relax when they land, and other people depend upon them being productive when they do land. It is not so much for the catering, which people who are wealthy come to simply expect, or ignore, but not feel special about.   If you travel a great deal airplane business class becomes your only place to relax, because it is the only space that is familiar. Sometimes we confuse the fact that the calm look on business class travellers’ faces is because they are more familiar with the experience of flying, not because the seats are so much better.

    READ THE MILLIONAIRE MIND: Rich people are rich because they work hard, and are patient. Most people cannot suppress their desire to ‘daydream’ or avoid work as long as people who are rich do (this is called time preference).  The rich outliers are statistical anomalies who have won a life lottery.  Most people who are balance sheet wealthy saved money or grew and sold businesses over very long periods of time, while training themselves to “appreciate present goods over future perfections”. 

    This is something that it is difficult to train humans to do, but it is possible. And as such, it is possible to train yourself to do.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-rich-people-ever-fly-coach

  • Criticism as Justification?

    [C]RITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION 1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm ) 2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law) 3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness) 4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory) Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious). Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ). Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology. As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kyiv, Ukraine.

  • Criticism as Justification?

    [C]RITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION 1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm ) 2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law) 3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness) 4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory) Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious). Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ). Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology. As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kyiv, Ukraine.

  • The Three Weapons of Influence and the Evolution of Laws

    (Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights) [T]here are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert: 1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing) 2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation) 3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite. The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation. Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism. Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy). I do not use the term natural law for Propertarianism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing. We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism. Then we had an invasion of Christianity. Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience) Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.) Three waves of increasingly articulate lies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud. Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.

  • The Three Weapons of Influence and the Evolution of Laws

    (Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights) [T]here are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert: 1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing) 2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation) 3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite. The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation. Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism. Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy). I do not use the term natural law for Propertarianism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing. We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism. Then we had an invasion of Christianity. Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience) Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.) Three waves of increasingly articulate lies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud. Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.

  • As Far As I know, This Is The Definitive Analysis of the Church

    [A]s far as I know: 1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government. 2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others. 3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality. 4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women. 5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe. There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks. Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of Europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of Europe. Economic history tells us differently. Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust. These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

  • As Far As I know, This Is The Definitive Analysis of the Church

    [A]s far as I know: 1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government. 2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others. 3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality. 4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women. 5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe. There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks. Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of Europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of Europe. Economic history tells us differently. Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust. These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

  • Why The Anne Hathaway Effect? The Cold Hard Truth: Shaming Alphas

    [W]e have overwhelming data, in all walks of life, that shows that ‘beta’ women and ‘beta’ males fear standards (other’s behavior) that they cannot themselves adhere to, and that are existential reminders of the inferiority of their social standing. The technique that they use to vent their self loathing is gossip. Or what we call “rallying and shaming”. There are three purposes to Rallying and Shaming. (a) To alter the public perception of what is admirable, (b) to deprive the exceptional person of status signals (c) to decrease the relative distance between the ‘beta’ and the ‘alpha’. We see this technique used pervasively in economics and politics under ‘inequality’, in the gender wars as ‘paternalism’, in the race wars as ‘privilege’, and in the arts as subjectivism. But in all cases, it is the same behavior: the less desirable, able, and articulate, polluting excellence so that it is not copied by others, by rallying and shaming against those who are objectively their superiors. By shaming what is objectively superior, they hope to prevent being ‘left behind’ as inferiors, and to maintain their relative social standing – at least in their own minds, and among their peers. This strategy is known as ‘keeping each other down.”