Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • BRITAIN Extreme wealth ruins a culture. Spain, France, Britain, America, in that

    BRITAIN

    Extreme wealth ruins a culture. Spain, France, Britain, America, in that order all suffer from creating elites during time of plenty that attempt to perpetuate and expand the institutions that they occupy even after the period of prosperity has ended. Worse, formerly hard working people are lifted up out of the peasant, working and middle classes, and protect their status as well – collapsing the culture of industry that made them able to afford the luxury and imprisoning them in perpetual maximization of rents. Leaving behind a vapid pretense of false signals. The average Brit spends his life trying to find a way to feel morally superior to someone else. The average american tries to find a way to feel economically and meritocratic-ally superior. Pretense reigns in the nation in decline.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-10 08:01:00 UTC

  • Of course there are differences. But the meaningful differences appear to result

    Of course there are differences. But the meaningful differences appear to result from the distribution of class reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 22:10:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663478712017489926

    Reply addressees: @WhittierPal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663478002215317504

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663478002215317504

  • So distributions are more problematic than race.. The world upper class gets alo

    So distributions are more problematic than race.. The world upper class gets along just fine. It’s the underclasses we herd.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 22:04:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663477176537346048

    Reply addressees: @WhittierPal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663476866733481984

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @WhittierPal Yes, but in my humble (arrogant) opinon, the primary difference between the races is the rate of reproduction of the underclass

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/663476866733481984

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @WhittierPal Yes, but in my humble (arrogant) opinon, the primary difference between the races is the rate of reproduction of the underclass

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/663476866733481984

  • Yes, but in my humble (arrogant) opinon, the primary difference between the race

    Yes, but in my humble (arrogant) opinon, the primary difference between the races is the rate of reproduction of the underclass

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 22:03:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663476866733481984

    Reply addressees: @WhittierPal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663476390067437568

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663476390067437568

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • The R-Selection Hierarchy (The Female Reproductive Strategy)

    R-SELECTION HIERARCHY (The Female Reproductive Strategy) —————————————————————————————— Women, Socialists + Communists Libertine Libertarians Ashkenazim Gypsies Tinkers Career Criminals Incompetents Invalids

    TECHNOLOGY: (LIARS AND THIEVES). —————————————————————————————— Lie, Gossip, Rally, Shame, Obscure Conflate, Load, Frame, Overload. PURPOSE —————————————————————————————— Given that the only moral cooperation one can engage in is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of cost by externality, then the purpose of the GOSSIPERS is to obtain a discount by imposing costs upon others. Women bear a high cost of reproduction long term and men bear a high risk of death long term. With voluntary exchange this relationship is symmetric. Without voluntary exchange this relationship is predatory. If a relationship is predatory then it is not cooperation it is predation. Neither men nor women may obtain their perfect preferences. We must conduct exchanges that function as compromises between our different strategies and preferences. Granting women equal property rights allowed voluntary exchange between the genders with opposing reproductive strategies. But granting women political privileges empowered them to destroy rule of law, and meritocracy and the compromise between the genders. As such it is a choice for males whether we allow this predation instead of voluntary exchange to persist. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. We can destroy the government and return to voluntary exchange. We need only choose to. (This ought to get me into trouble all over the place.)

  • The R-Selection Hierarchy (The Female Reproductive Strategy)

    R-SELECTION HIERARCHY (The Female Reproductive Strategy) —————————————————————————————— Women, Socialists + Communists Libertine Libertarians Ashkenazim Gypsies Tinkers Career Criminals Incompetents Invalids

    TECHNOLOGY: (LIARS AND THIEVES). —————————————————————————————— Lie, Gossip, Rally, Shame, Obscure Conflate, Load, Frame, Overload. PURPOSE —————————————————————————————— Given that the only moral cooperation one can engage in is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of cost by externality, then the purpose of the GOSSIPERS is to obtain a discount by imposing costs upon others. Women bear a high cost of reproduction long term and men bear a high risk of death long term. With voluntary exchange this relationship is symmetric. Without voluntary exchange this relationship is predatory. If a relationship is predatory then it is not cooperation it is predation. Neither men nor women may obtain their perfect preferences. We must conduct exchanges that function as compromises between our different strategies and preferences. Granting women equal property rights allowed voluntary exchange between the genders with opposing reproductive strategies. But granting women political privileges empowered them to destroy rule of law, and meritocracy and the compromise between the genders. As such it is a choice for males whether we allow this predation instead of voluntary exchange to persist. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. We can destroy the government and return to voluntary exchange. We need only choose to. (This ought to get me into trouble all over the place.)

  • The Intertemporal Division of Coercive Specialization

    [C]oercive Specialization: Conservative, Libertarian, and Progressive May / may not = conservative. Can / can not = libertarian. Should / should not = Progressive.
    Accumulate = conservative. Produce = libertarian. Consume = progressive. K selection = conservative.* Exchange selection = libertarian.* R selection = progressive.* Long term = conservative. Medium term = libertarian. Short term = progressive. Law = conservative. Trade = libertarian. Gossip = progressive. Commodity Money (gold) = conservative. Fiduciary Media (notes) = libertarian. Fiat Currency (shares) = progressive. Force : Law (limit on parasitism) : Conservatism. Remuneration. : Trade (utility) : Libertarianism. Gossip (shaming) : Religion and Norms ( deprivation of opportunity to cooperate) : Progressivism. There exist only three technologies of coercion. It should not surprise us that humans specialize in each. Or that we should organize into groups led by specialists in each. Of that some would master more than one : Statism: Lying(gossip), bribing(remuneration) and commanding (law). Or that mastery of a positive use of coercion would also produce mastery of a negative use of coercion. The only “truth” we can ever know in politics, is productive, fully informed voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine * “K” is for carrying capacity. “r” is for rate of growth. If you have limited resources, you need competition, that’s where K excels – The male reproductive strategy. If you have free resources, your best option is to grow wildly, that’s where r excels – The female reproductive strategy. Exchange reproductive strategy refers to the strategy of ‘homo economicus’: productivity.

  • The Intertemporal Division of Coercive Specialization

    [C]oercive Specialization: Conservative, Libertarian, and Progressive May / may not = conservative. Can / can not = libertarian. Should / should not = Progressive.
    Accumulate = conservative. Produce = libertarian. Consume = progressive. K selection = conservative.* Exchange selection = libertarian.* R selection = progressive.* Long term = conservative. Medium term = libertarian. Short term = progressive. Law = conservative. Trade = libertarian. Gossip = progressive. Commodity Money (gold) = conservative. Fiduciary Media (notes) = libertarian. Fiat Currency (shares) = progressive. Force : Law (limit on parasitism) : Conservatism. Remuneration. : Trade (utility) : Libertarianism. Gossip (shaming) : Religion and Norms ( deprivation of opportunity to cooperate) : Progressivism. There exist only three technologies of coercion. It should not surprise us that humans specialize in each. Or that we should organize into groups led by specialists in each. Of that some would master more than one : Statism: Lying(gossip), bribing(remuneration) and commanding (law). Or that mastery of a positive use of coercion would also produce mastery of a negative use of coercion. The only “truth” we can ever know in politics, is productive, fully informed voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine * “K” is for carrying capacity. “r” is for rate of growth. If you have limited resources, you need competition, that’s where K excels – The male reproductive strategy. If you have free resources, your best option is to grow wildly, that’s where r excels – The female reproductive strategy. Exchange reproductive strategy refers to the strategy of ‘homo economicus’: productivity.