Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • CLARK DOES IT AGAIN: CLASS IS GENETIC

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141932/gregory-clark/the-american-dream-is-an-illusionGREGORY CLARK DOES IT AGAIN: CLASS IS GENETIC

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141932/gregory-clark/the-american-dream-is-an-illusion

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-02 04:06:00 UTC

  • THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM What if all companies compete in the market with t

    THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM

    What if all companies compete in the market with the same strategy? Those with the most credit will eventually accumulate the talent and other resources to defeat the rest. So companies specialize in market tactics.

    What if all states compete in the market with the same strategy? If everyone competed on meritocracy, the most technologically advanced state would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth. If on violence, the strongest would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth, territory, and control. The most vocal the most influence. This is why states specialize in different tactics. Because meritocracy is only beneficial to the meritocratic. war is most beneficial to the strong. and everyone else engages in criticism and complaint as moral rebellion.

    What if all tribes compete in the market with the same strategy? If all compete on meritocracy, the smartest, strongest, most trustworthy, and most technologically advanced will capture a disproportionate percentage of the wealth. If on strength, the strongest, and fastest, willing to make the greatest sacrifices will capture it. The rest will rely on gossip criticism and complaint and negotiate whatever possible ends they can. So tribes specialize in reproductive and social tactics.

    What if all families compete in the market with the same strategy? if families competed in the polity using the same strategy the wealthy would prosper under meritocracy and the poor would prosper under communism, and the powerful would prosper under authoritarianism. This is why families politically compete using different political preferences: it is in their interests to do so. Classes vote as classes because classes share reproductive strategies. As much as we do not like it, humans use three different strategies (gossip/criticism/guilt, violence, remuneration) to compete, and they do so because the upper classes are literally genetically superior to the lower classes in both intelligence, ability, and reproductive value.

    An homogenous polity, an homogenous moral code for a political system, is a disadvantage to some and an advantage to others. The state isn’t the only monopoly that’s ‘bad’. As an artifact of an extended family of aristocrats, it is adequate for the representation of their interests. A multi-house government is merely a market for constructing social contracts – as long as they are contracts that expire, rather than laws that do not. The mistake we made was in not adding the church as the lowest house of the state, and requiring that aristocracy(the land), merchant and banker (commerce), the common folk (the church and care-taking) were not separated into individual houses. Each with their own requirements for entry, and taxes paid, and all of which participated in exchanges.

    Even as such, a division of those preferences does not solve the problem of the demand for totalitarianism on one end and demand for liberty at the other. The problem is that property rights must exist as universally atomic (private) but that we can use those rights under a political contract, to construct whatever political order best suits our reproductive interests.

    Any order that constructs a market for exchange between those of us with dissimilar interests and abilities is a moral one. However, any order which favors one house or the other through parasitism rather than exchange does not.

    The fallacy of the enlightenment is that of equality, since equality is a code word for monopoly, and monopoly is a code word for tyranny, and tyranny is a code word for parasitism. And under no condition is cooperation rational under parasitism. And if we are not cooperating then violence is on the table.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 04:31:00 UTC

  • Cultural Observations: Eastern European ‘luxury’ (Embarrassing note to friends:

    Cultural Observations: Eastern European ‘luxury’

    (Embarrassing note to friends: We don’t have a car. We have a driver, and a housekeeper, and someone else to help too – so oversized the two bedroom apartment is never empty. And that apartment plus all the ‘help’ are about equal in cost to a decent apartment in Seattle – not much at all. Now, you can do the same thing in much of the rest of the world, but there is a definite class and culture difference between you and the staff. Whereas here in eastern Europe, it’s more like hiring your extended family and sort of living with them. And I gotta tell, ya’, if it wasn’t for the damned banking problem here, and the inability to ship stuff to from major retailers to Ukraine, I can’t imagine a better place or way to live. Yeah, it’s a bit dirty and run-down everywhere, but the people make up for it. Now, if I lived alone instead of with a tribe, I’d really prefer to just have a housekeeper/assistant of some kind – a wife without sex who can’t take your assets, vs a wife without sex in america who can take your assets. And you can have all the girlfriends you want. I really hate my government. Because if it weren’t for them I might actually be able to be happy here. So I might have to dispose of the government.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-25 08:44:00 UTC

  • Keynesianism -> Restated Marx = “Dishonest Socialism” Rothbardianism -> Restated

    Keynesianism -> Restated Marx = “Dishonest Socialism”

    Rothbardianism -> Restated Hospers = “Dishonest Libertarianism”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 23:07:00 UTC

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • You should never live in fear of your own government. I do. Every day. The lefti

    You should never live in fear of your own government. I do. Every day.

    The leftist war against white wealth.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-18 06:08:00 UTC

  • Critique (left criticism) is just a highly evolved form of gossip, that like gos

    Critique (left criticism) is just a highly evolved form of gossip, that like gossip, can be used to constrain alphas.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-13 22:51:00 UTC

  • Rothbardian Libertarians are totalitarian. Because the source of their ideas is

    Rothbardian Libertarians are totalitarian.

    Because the source of their ideas is totalitarian.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is a cult.

    It is a cult that causes damage tot he brand of liberty.

    Because Rothbardian libertarianism has nothing to do with aristocratic liberty.

    It’s the antithesis of aristocratic liberty.

    Aristocrats create a commons. They make the commons possible.

    The west’s competitive advantage is our high trust enables us to build commons.

    And Rothbardianism is an outright attack on creating commons’.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is just an elaborate pseudoscientific word game.

    Rothbard’s purpose is to provide justification for immoral libertinism – and nothing more.

    Rothbardianism is an attempt to create a license to lie cheat and steal.

    Totalitarian, cult, libertinism – the very opposite of liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-13 06:59:00 UTC

  • What Proportion Of People (in Various Countries) Are Libertarian?

    It depends on whether you are referring to Christian, “classical liberal” libertarianism in the Hayekian sense, or Jewish “libertine” libertarianism in the Rothbardian sense. Around 10-12% of Americans identify themselves libertarian – although the number that consider themselves Rothbardian is not something we have trustworthy survey data for, the activism of the rothbardian libertine minority outweighs is negligible political influence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-proportion-of-people-in-various-countries-are-libertarian