Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • Looking for feedback on this one. ——- Conservatives talk about the virtues o

    Looking for feedback on this one.

    ——-

    Conservatives talk about the virtues of a wife consisting of primarily care taking in support of her husband and loving her children because historically males had a clear edge over females in their ability to reliably generate sufficient income for himself, thus making a team consisting of a productive husband and a care taking wife that takes exploits these comparative advantages the most (cost-)effective and reliable strategy for earning a living.

    Today, on the whole and in spite of women’s entry into the workforce, that division of labor still holds true: over their lifetime men, as a group, produce and contribute to tax revenue disproportionately, whereas women, as a group, consume and receive tax revenue (and children and seniors of either gender consume). And where previously the husband’s authority or a natural limit his ability to generate income would limit his wife’s (and his own) ability to consume, we have now transferred the man’s authority to the state. This means that today

    – we broker male-female relationships through the authority of the state,

    – net consumers (women and the children they raise) increasingly rely on the welfare state since jumping through governmental hoops to obtain welfare for many women constitutes a greater return on investment and much lower running cost (or so they think),

    – and net consumers (women and the children they raise) tend to vote for increases in state largesse (as self-interest would dictate).

    More generally, today we practice communistic redistribution and democratic decision making at a societal level instead of at the family level. In addition, because we practice democratic decision making at a societal level the incentives for politicians reward appealing to the lowest common denominator, which the Democratic Party in the US (and every leftist party across the Western world) has increasingly translated into an imperative for increasing the number of dependents in a variety of ways:

    – give women an incentive to leave their husbands by making divorce easy and profitable, thus raising the number of single mothers and the children they raise, which means that

    – we produce a greater number of dysfunctional children, since we now know that children of single mothers disproportionately experience poverty, substance abuse, inability to sustain their own lifestyle and hold down a job, etc. (This also raises the level of conflict within society thereby increasing demand for authority and therefore fragile global instead of resilient local solutions)

    – Importing labor (with the consent of the Republican/conservative elites who wished to punish the underclasses for the union movement) from different countries and therefore cultures who do not share the Protestant ethic but do demonstrate natural kin preference, by only weakly enforcing the border (or in the European case importing and then sustaining economic migrants by opening borders entirely).

    On the whole, this means that we spend a greater and increasing amount of taxes on KEEPING THINGS RUNNING (welfare, law enforcement, conflict resolution, appeasement of minorities, conducting war for oil) than INVESTING IN FUTURE RETURNS (infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, space exploration and colonization, research and development, overhauling and opening the education system – in short, the Commons).

    And where before a failure to reconcile the consumption drive of the wife (women) and children (children, underclasses, and low skill immigrants – the relationship is a domesticating one in all) would have resulted in the breakup of a single family and the absorption of its constituent parts into other families or greater social structures, leading only to minor and therefore negligible damage in the fabric of society, today a breakup of the marriage between productive male and consumptive female, i.e. the state,

    – would and will take a longer time to occur (about 100 years since granting women the right to vote) thanks to consumption of accumulated wealth (in the form of financial, cultural, and genetic capital) and credit-supported liquidity,

    – the arrangement produces a much greater amount of dysfunction before its collapse, and

    – the collapse itself, which by now seems nearly inevitable, will cause a much greater amount of, and perhaps permanent, damage to the fabric of society, all within a very short timeframe, which we may attribute to the long buildup of fragilities that now pervade the entire system.

    [1] Source: http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/roiw.12165#, explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6s92p42UM

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 17:22:00 UTC

  • “Tell me Dolores. If you could choose a bigger role for yourself, would you choo

    –“Tell me Dolores. If you could choose a bigger role for yourself, would you choose to be the hero? Or the villain?”—

    To an AI this question is undecidable. Only man can make this decision – one way or the other. An AI can answer is, is possible, and advisable questions. But it cannot answer preferential questions unless man gives it that ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 18:15:00 UTC

  • AMERICAN CULTURE AS DESPERATE ATTENTION SEEKING American activism is largely a r

    AMERICAN CULTURE AS DESPERATE ATTENTION SEEKING

    American activism is largely a result of desperate attention seeking.

    Signal searching is a socially acceptable means of attention seeking.

    Just as SJW and victimhood are forms of attention seeking.

    Learn. Produce. Labor. Bear. Everything else is just seeking redistribution.

    Redistribution of attention. Redistribution of discipline. Redistribution of learning. Redistribution of effort. Redistribution of labor. Redistribution of rewards.

    Redistribution means nothing more than the forcible taking and redistributing from those who do to those who do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 12:21:00 UTC

  • You’re trying to convince us of a perspective, Curt, which means you recognize o

    —You’re trying to convince us of a perspective, Curt, which means you recognize our status as actors and thus self-owners.—

    I recognize you possess control over your life and body, and that as a consequence I must fight, negotiate a trade, or engage in moral persuasion in order to coerce you if I desire to obtain your life, possessions, interests, relations, institutions, and norms.

    Possession = Defense (not-owner, merely possessor)

    Property = Normative Contract (owner and possessor)

    Property Rights = Contract with Insurer (owner and possessor)

    Ownership = Contractual (normative or insured) monopoly of control of total or partial interest.

    None of which tells us the scope of possession, property, or property rights men will retaliate against the imposition of costs upon (defend).

    In no way does your possession of anything convey ownershp (my consent to eschew violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, or conquest). What does is the threat of the costs you will impose upon me if I seek to alter it.

    Avoidance, Threat, Deception, Negotiation, Persuasion, and Argument(truth) are all possible. Does anyone ever rely upon truth or do we all merely engage in negotiation and persuasion?

    Are we engaged in argument now? Or are you trying to justify your priors and I justify mine?

    How do you know you’re speaking truthfully rather than just honestly, (or dishonestly)?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 21:38:00 UTC

  • The more sensible you are (a) the more questions people ask you, and (b) the mor

    The more sensible you are (a) the more questions people ask you, and (b) the more stuff they ask you to do. Yet the more sense you make, (c) the greater the number of people are intimidated by and (d) avoid you. Once you start to make enough sense that you’re not providing discounts, but imposing costs, they quickly learn to be careful around you, and will only selectively employ your abilities.

    (h/t Josh Jeppeson)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 07:42:00 UTC

  • Man Is Merely Rational

    Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.

  • Man Is Merely Rational

    Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.

  • The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders

    (By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

    Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—

  • The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders

    (By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

    Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—

  • Sequence

    Those who fight Those who judge Those who choose (risk) Those who discover (research) Those who organize ( manage ) Those who produce Those who reproduce Those who care Those who are unable Those who are criminal Those who betray.