Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • Capitalism And The Sword

    [C]apitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because liberty was constructed by the martial class. Period. Violence creates property. Property creates prosperity. Prosperity makes charity possible. WE ARE THE FOUNDATION. ALL OF CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS We either form a wall and do not break, or there is not capitalism, prosperity and charity.

    1. ORDER: VIOLENCE IS THE FIRST WEALTH WE INVEST.
    2. PRODUCTION: CAPITALISM IS ONE OF THE INVESTMENTS WE CAN MAKE.
    3. CHARITY: REDISTRIBUTION IS A LUXURY WE CAN CHOOSE TO AFFORD.
    It’s time to water the tree of liberty with a little blood.

  • MARK ANDREESSEN AS CLASSICAL MONARCH? Thinking about whether Tech is increasing

    MARK ANDREESSEN AS CLASSICAL MONARCH?

    Thinking about whether Tech is increasing income inequality, It occurred to me that Andreessen Horowitz is essentially acting like an enlightened European monarchy prior to its destruction by revolutionary democracy, by funding local experiments with their concentrated wealth, and in doing so creating an entirely new form (old form) of economy – proving once again the superiority of the western pre-democratic model.

    (The alternative to the god that failed illustrated )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 13:04:00 UTC

  • CAPITALISM AND THE SWORD Capitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because

    CAPITALISM AND THE SWORD

    Capitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because liberty was constructed by the martial class. Period. Violence creates property. Property creates prosperity. Prosperity makes charity possible.

    WE ARE THE FOUNDATION. ALL OF CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS

    We either form a wall and do not break, or there is not capitalism, prosperity and charity.

    VIOLENCE IS THE FIRST WEALTH WE INVEST.

    CAPITALISM IS ONE OF THE INVESTMENTS WE CAN MAKE.

    REDISTRIBUTION IS A LUXURY WE CAN CHOOSE TO AFFORD.

    It’s time to water the tree of liberty with a little blood.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 09:58:00 UTC

  • I AM HAPPY WITH SPECIALIZATION RATHER THAN EQUALITY So in propertarianism I see

    I AM HAPPY WITH SPECIALIZATION RATHER THAN EQUALITY

    So in propertarianism I see three coercive technologies, and three classes mastering them. I am perfectly happy mastering my class’s technology (violence: law and war, and to a lesser degree remuneration: production distribution and trade, and to a lesser degree gossip/morality.). But if I had my ‘druthers’ I would master only law and war, and let better men master remuneration and gossip.

    We ask too much of men under equality. It is hard enough to specialize in one thing. Why must we master three? If we cooperate we need not. And that would make most of us much happier. Men love to be in their role and respected for it. The common man care less about our position than success in that position.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 06:58:00 UTC

  • is the model for both natural and social sciences. If wages for labor rose in th

    http://andrewmcafee.org/2012/12/the-great-decoupling-of-the-us-economy/Information is the model for both natural and social sciences.

    If wages for labor rose in the industrial era and are declining in the information era then those prices (wages) are telling us something.

    If wages for problem solvers was limited in the era of concentrated capital (early industry), and is expanding in the era of distributed capital between temporary alliances of firms – then we should see increasing wages where capital is concentrated and decreasing wages where distributed.

    So instead of wealthy and poor countries we have wealthy and poor firms. And we have a declining wage for anyone not in a firm able to concentrate capital.

    And capital today is available at zero cost. So the only marginally competitive value is in human beings marginally superior to other human beings.

    Technological man is the scarce resource(genetics). High trust is the scarce political environment(culture).

    The industrial era was an outlier.

    Farming went from a good business in 1830, to a terrible business in 1930.

    Industrial labor is following farming.

    And white collar labor is close behind.

    Hence Propertarianism tells me that we must pay off the unemployable to maintain the commons, and decrease their numbers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL ECONOMIST’S ANALYSIS: (Important concept) 1) Yes, global inequality on

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/03/marc-andreessen-and-sheryl-sandberg-tech-is-not-driving-income-inequality/A POLITICAL ECONOMIST’S ANALYSIS:

    (Important concept)

    1) Yes, global inequality on a COUNTRY by COUNTRY level is declining (profoundly). This is because few countries fail to adopt and practice consumer capitalism (the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, made possible by fiat money and credit: the use of shares in the nation’s government as a money substitute.)

    2) BUT, as a consequence, the FIRM that you work for is now more influential than your COUNTRY in determining your relative income.

    *If you let that sink in, it will profoundly alter your perception of the world. The west developed rule of law (instead of rule by law), property rights, contract law, accounting, banking, credit, interest, fiat money, fiat credit, high-trust, and consumer capitalism – but like any technology, this consumer capitalism is open to adoption. Furthermore, it is this consumer capitalism that is the origin of western relative prosperity, and democracy is an expensive luxury good made possible by consumer capitalism and high trust. The west will continue to prosper as long as high-trust is preserved. But, preservation of this high trust – the extension of kinship trust to customers and neighbors – is incompatible with current political doctrine. Small homogenous scandinavian countries on the edge of a wet continent with no hostile borders, and no competitors are not role models – they are outliers.*

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-05 05:40:00 UTC

  • THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF COERCIVE SPECIALIZATION May / may not = conservati

    THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF COERCIVE SPECIALIZATION

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-04 03:51:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM

    MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    OMG you made me ‘get it’. Thank you. Awesome.

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:22:00 UTC

  • PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING It is parasitic (immoral)

    PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING

    It is parasitic (immoral) to control the lower classes with lies. If we wish them to limit their reproduction, and cease their parasitism upon us, and restore the commons, and restore the civic society, then the HONEST and TRUE and MORAL thing to do, is to pay them for doing so.

    Violence, and Gossip (argument) are just means of lying in order to obtain a discount. In a world where men live in subsistence farming, entry into the market requires we pay the price of forgoing parasitism.

    In a world where they cannot enter the labor market, nor can return to subsistence farming, they possess no incentive other than parasitism upon us via creating demand for a predatory state.

    So we must provide alternative incentive for those people who are materially unproductive (especially given that it is very likely that the condition will worsen and spread.)

    The only people I want to hang are in the State, Academy, Media complex – the Cathedral. the rest I want only to pay to not reproduce. Which I consider far better than our previous technologies of starvation and hanging.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 07:08:00 UTC

  • TRUMP IS A PROBLEM FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS —“The Republican donor side is that J

    TRUMP IS A PROBLEM FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS

    —“The Republican donor side is that Jeb Bush or, if not Jeb, somebody else acceptable to the Republican establishment, gets elected president, Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House, and the donor class thinks that if they can make that happen, that within 12 to 18 months their entire agenda will be implemented. And that’s why Trump is a problem, and that’s why Ben Carson is a problem, because either Trump or Carson put an obstacle in the way of the agenda happening.”—-

    —” If Hillary Clinton wins, the first thing on Election Night… They won’t even wait ’til the next day to say it. If Hillary Clinton wins, the Republican Party will come out en masse, and they will say, “See? We told you we need to do comprehensive immigration reform right now or we will never win back the White House.” That’s already built in. If Hillary Clinton wins, no matter who the Republican nominee is, that’s what the RNC and that’s what the Republican establishment is going to say. They’re gonna lay the loss off on you, because you stood in the way of them doing amnesty. And once again, conservatives will be blamed for Hillary winning. That’s already written. That’s already done deal. The one thing that stands in the way of all of this, Donald Trump or Ben Carson.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 12:27:00 UTC