Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542035680 Timestamp) LOVE by Nick’s Reason Love is not something that needs to be ‘found’ or ‘felt’ in any great intuitive way. Love is a skill that requires discipline. I can love anyone. In a sexual relationship, all that is required is a sexual attraction and the rest of the love thing is the application and discipline of the skill, love. Now, taking it the next step further, to love someone for a lifetime will require other calculations to be made which are again not something that needs to be ‘found’ or ‘felt’ but simply measured, understood and reciprocal. These include character, values & goals. With the ingredients of sexual attraction, the application of the loving skill and the measured reciprocation of character, values, and goals you have the recipe of a lifelong relationship. The love of a sexual relationship by this definition isn’t any different to how one would love all their other kin (minus the sexuality) —“I Love You” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own, against my actions, you will not find it untrue”— Eli Harman

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542122872 Timestamp) THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable. 2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. So, this is why we must separate. We don’t need to agree. It’s just going to happen. So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542122872 Timestamp) THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable. 2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. So, this is why we must separate. We don’t need to agree. It’s just going to happen. So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542636993 Timestamp) Hmmm….. Let’s Go Through This Question WHEREAS The necessity of Reciprocity exists – because it creates and preserves the incentive to cooperate, and by cooperating produce a division of knowledge and labor, and the disproportionate returns from it. Demand for reciprocity exists in competition with demand for preservation of parasitism and predation. By the use of organized violence to produce traditions, norms, and laws we incrementally suppress parasitism and predation, increasing demand for reciprocity, and therefore the markets, and the returns on cooperation. These traditions, norms, and laws consists of demands (duties) to both personally avoid parasitism and predation and personally police parasitism and predation. The origin of laws is the prevention of retaliation cycles (feuds), and standardization of restitution and punishments, between men who policed their kin, and instead form a corporation that polices all, including retaliation cycles, thereby preventing degradation of the returns on cooperation through degradation of cooperation, through degradation of trust, because of increase in risk. ERGO: 0) We always have the choice of predation, parasitism, cooperation, non-cooperation, and boycott. ie: Man is amoral choosing immoral (predation, parasitism), amoral (irrelevant), and moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality) as is in his interests. 1) Predation is optimum in the short term, parasitism in the medium term, and cooperation in the long term, but all tend toward equilibration as we run out of opportunities for predation, parasitism, and cooperation, and seek alternative means of survival, subsistence, prosperity. 2) Cooperation produces outsized returns as long as it is not offset by parasitism and predation. 3) Reciprocity preserves the incentive to cooperate and as a consequence, the returns of cooperation. 4) We organize the suppression of parasitism and predation (and in some cases even boycott) by the concentration of violence to do so. 5) We finance this suppression by suppression of local ‘rents’ and increasing centralization of rents. Thus giving rise to the military police and judiciary. 6) To decrease risk, transaction costs, and increase the velocity of cooperation and the returns from it, we further suppress by prior restraint, creating the insurer of last resort,: from the demand for weights and measures, and the production and defense of commons we form governments from headmen, chieftains, kings (martial class), oligarchies (middle class), and democracies (underclass), as well as churches (education) to train people into doing so. 7) But without the courts to function as a market for reciprocity with which to defend us from those within the insurer of last resort, these centralizations create a monopoly and therefore maximize the extraction of rents and maximize the defensibility of the sustainability of those rents, and do so by searching for ‘customers’ that facilitate the extraction of rents. 8) Meaning that the only solutions are restoration of markets inside that monopoly we call the insurer of last resort. As such while startup costs are often best paid by the insurer of last resort, once survivable such must be privatized, OR subject to juridical competition under universal standing. 9) The remaining question being the decision on the production of commons: which appears, aesthetically to be optimally served by the a monarchy; commercially by an oligarchy, familially by democracy, and as an insurer of last resort, a church (the outliers). As such the principle difference is organizing these markets and allocating returns on cooperation (those commissions on cooperation we call taxes) to the hierarchy so that each class may engage in trade with others for the production of desirable commons. AS SUCH 1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542636993 Timestamp) Hmmm….. Let’s Go Through This Question WHEREAS The necessity of Reciprocity exists – because it creates and preserves the incentive to cooperate, and by cooperating produce a division of knowledge and labor, and the disproportionate returns from it. Demand for reciprocity exists in competition with demand for preservation of parasitism and predation. By the use of organized violence to produce traditions, norms, and laws we incrementally suppress parasitism and predation, increasing demand for reciprocity, and therefore the markets, and the returns on cooperation. These traditions, norms, and laws consists of demands (duties) to both personally avoid parasitism and predation and personally police parasitism and predation. The origin of laws is the prevention of retaliation cycles (feuds), and standardization of restitution and punishments, between men who policed their kin, and instead form a corporation that polices all, including retaliation cycles, thereby preventing degradation of the returns on cooperation through degradation of cooperation, through degradation of trust, because of increase in risk. ERGO: 0) We always have the choice of predation, parasitism, cooperation, non-cooperation, and boycott. ie: Man is amoral choosing immoral (predation, parasitism), amoral (irrelevant), and moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality) as is in his interests. 1) Predation is optimum in the short term, parasitism in the medium term, and cooperation in the long term, but all tend toward equilibration as we run out of opportunities for predation, parasitism, and cooperation, and seek alternative means of survival, subsistence, prosperity. 2) Cooperation produces outsized returns as long as it is not offset by parasitism and predation. 3) Reciprocity preserves the incentive to cooperate and as a consequence, the returns of cooperation. 4) We organize the suppression of parasitism and predation (and in some cases even boycott) by the concentration of violence to do so. 5) We finance this suppression by suppression of local ‘rents’ and increasing centralization of rents. Thus giving rise to the military police and judiciary. 6) To decrease risk, transaction costs, and increase the velocity of cooperation and the returns from it, we further suppress by prior restraint, creating the insurer of last resort,: from the demand for weights and measures, and the production and defense of commons we form governments from headmen, chieftains, kings (martial class), oligarchies (middle class), and democracies (underclass), as well as churches (education) to train people into doing so. 7) But without the courts to function as a market for reciprocity with which to defend us from those within the insurer of last resort, these centralizations create a monopoly and therefore maximize the extraction of rents and maximize the defensibility of the sustainability of those rents, and do so by searching for ‘customers’ that facilitate the extraction of rents. 8) Meaning that the only solutions are restoration of markets inside that monopoly we call the insurer of last resort. As such while startup costs are often best paid by the insurer of last resort, once survivable such must be privatized, OR subject to juridical competition under universal standing. 9) The remaining question being the decision on the production of commons: which appears, aesthetically to be optimally served by the a monarchy; commercially by an oligarchy, familially by democracy, and as an insurer of last resort, a church (the outliers). As such the principle difference is organizing these markets and allocating returns on cooperation (those commissions on cooperation we call taxes) to the hierarchy so that each class may engage in trade with others for the production of desirable commons. AS SUCH 1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542809996 Timestamp) So, it is always and everywhere an open question whether one demonstrates conviction – or convenience (free riding). Pacifism and tolerance and virtue signaling are fairly easy to employ as camouflage for cowardice, free riding, and immorality. (worth repeating)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1543241097 Timestamp) ENDING BROTHER WARS by Bill Joslin hmmmm…. I thought the whole point of highlighting the lies of Abrahamism was to forever eradicate pitting brothers against each other over religion. My stance, not that it matters, hinges on the private-public distinction. I don’t care, nor do I proclaim to have authority over what others think or believe in the private sphere. If you want to hold metaphor or allegory as real then I say have at’er- not my business, nor does it impose costs on me if you choose to do so. Further to that, I wouldn’t fault a man for doing so. However, within the public sphere, these claims will be held to account – FULL ACCOUNT – including, but not limited to, the false claims that Christianity is the essential component to western thriving – it’s simply not. Western thriving did not occur until law and governance were abstracted away from religion into their own respective institutions… So here’s the deal – until the religious begin reporting truthfully in the public sphere or keep their private assertions private or qualify their public statements about private beliefs; we will continue to prosecute publicly…. that’s all that is going on here – prosecution of public lies – prosecution of private-public conflations.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1543511026 Timestamp) ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY ( worth repeating ) ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they sexual, social, and political market value, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1543587328 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND CIVILIZATIONS FILL EVERY NICHE |FEED|: Herd > Pack > Solitary Hunter > Scavenger > Kleptoparasite > Parasite. Mammals cover the full range. Humans cover the full range. Civilizations cover the full range.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1543587328 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND CIVILIZATIONS FILL EVERY NICHE |FEED|: Herd > Pack > Solitary Hunter > Scavenger > Kleptoparasite > Parasite. Mammals cover the full range. Humans cover the full range. Civilizations cover the full range.