Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • On Farmers in The Division of Labor

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

  • On Farmers in The Division of Labor

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons

    Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/monogamy-as-competitive-normative-commons/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 00:01:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266520169322602498

  • Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons

    Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.

  • Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons

    Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.

  • The Reason for Western Excellence Is Simple and Ancient – And Decline, Recent

    Mar 8, 2020, 10:42 AM Western people’s military technology during the western indo european expansion from 2500-1200BC, required (a) a fully militarized polity (b) a voluntarily militarized social order with self funded warriors using expensive hose, bronze, and wheel (entrepreneurial),(c) the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity we call ‘tort’ or “property”, and the Jury, and the larger version of the jury “democracy”. WIth the combination of military epistemology, military meritocracy, a military social order where everyone has value and earns respect if they just do their duty regardless of rank, and a judicial system predicted on nothing other than evidence, produced a social order that (a) with the least falsehood, (b) with the greatest opportunity for adaptation, (c) with the greatest possible rate of adaptation, (d) with the greatest incentive for technological and organizational innovation. These people used these traditions to conquer all of northern europe, then to expand southward into southern europe, most likely contributing to or causing the bronze age collapse, and then, rebuilding greece, rome, defeating rome, and rebuilding germania, scandinavia, the baltics, russia. When the turks conquered byzantium, and entered europe tey barricaded trade and the europeans developed the age of sail to circumvent the muslims, and discovered the world. They used the world’s new resources (technological advantage) and remoteness (exclusivity) to bring resources to europe, transform them, and sell them to the world, to finance the huge cost of their imperial expansions. The only mistakes they made were not crushing france entirely, so that the holy roman empire, (germany) could control the continent, and russia the steppe; and stopping russia from reconquering byzantium (orthodoxy), and instead having a civil war that ruined it all. Had the west completed the job of colonization, and dragged the whole world into modernity without world wars, abandonment of the colonies, the wars against communism, the current civil war against jewish-abrhamimsm and immigration, and the wars against islam would never have been necessary. Instead we left the world half domesticated and having to catch up to us on their own. The primary difference between the west and the rest is truth and honesty and no-cheating, and no corruption, and rule of law of sovereignty and property because we were equal in respect as a military people, even if unequal in economic ability – we were all in our ‘rank’ and if we do our duty we are due respect. This is also why we win wars, and other people do not. REASON FOR WESTERN DECLINE 1) Western genetic, cultural, institutional, and technical advantage has been redistributed to most of the world. 2) Our internal redistributive politics have ended our genetic advantage because e have stopped breeding in sufficient numbers. 3) Our civil war (World Wars) destroyed our aggression and willpower. 4) Immigration of postwar Jewish intellectuals created the second abrahamic dark age with the false promises of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism, and sold them to immigrants, the underclass and enough of white women, through the university system, consumer marketing, entertainment and media – undermining our cultural advantage. 5) Immigration and underclass reproduction have eroded our institutional advantage.