Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • If we forcibly moved all of them to Palestine, then in about four centuries they

    If we forcibly moved all of them to Palestine, then in about four centuries they’ll be ethically protestant. Why? Landholding ethics, and high trust ethics needed to scale organizations. Either that or they’d be defeated. We forget they had a professional class but never a middle MANAGERIAL class.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 18:15:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism Survives/exists by Miscategorizing Relations.

    by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (via Brandon Hayes)

  • Libertarianism Survives/exists by Miscategorizing Relations.

    by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (via Brandon Hayes)

  • Social interactions must be ‘calculable’ and the greater the variation in predic

    Social interactions must be ‘calculable’ and the greater the variation in predicability the higher the cost of discovering a protocol (shared sentiments) and the higher the cost of seeking subtlety (innovation).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 16:45:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996431460084191232

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @charlesmurray Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased interpersonal interaction. In other words, heterogeneity and tolerance decrease sociability, and homogeneity increases sociability. The fact that this is a necessary consequence of cognition is lost.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @charlesmurray Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased interpersonal interaction. In other words, heterogeneity and tolerance decrease sociability, and homogeneity increases sociability. The fact that this is a necessary consequence of cognition is lost.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264

  • Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased inte

    Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased interpersonal interaction. In other words, heterogeneity and tolerance decrease sociability, and homogeneity increases sociability. The fact that this is a necessary consequence of cognition is lost.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 15:23:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995989083921973249

    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    This is really good, period. That it was written by an undergraduate is extraordinary. https://t.co/Lku1llXmMW

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995989083921973249

  • by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by m

    by Luke Weinhagen

    The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error.

    (via Brandon Hayes)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 10:32:00 UTC

  • The Incentive to Produce Quality Goods, Services, and Information

    by Steve Pender In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people. 3 scenarios: EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival) Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.
    May 14, 2018 8:31am

  • The Incentive to Produce Quality Goods, Services, and Information

    by Steve Pender In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people. 3 scenarios: EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival) Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.
    May 14, 2018 8:31am

  • There are very few of us

    Look, we evolved as pack animals and those intuitions you feel but cannot introspectively analyze are intuitions that find comfort in a leader of the pack, membership in the pack, and running with the pack. We have atomized property and atomized individuals yet we are always pack(male) and herd (female) animals. There are very few of us that have had occasion to develop the mental discipline to create agency, and therefor understand these impulses as artifacts to be felt, understood, but not acted upon, just as violence, theft, or envy are to be felt, understood, but not acted upon. It’s not that I don’t understand the desire for a pack(herd) leader, membership in the pack(herd) and the feeling of running with the pack (herd). I do. It’s that like the impulse to commit other forms of crime exists in many if not all of us to some degree or another, but most of us learn not to act on those impulses. If you lack agency to do so that’s understandable, but then you lack the agency to make fully rational choices, and as lacking fully rational choices you are not fully human. And as such unfit for decisions demanding of rationality and agency. And that decision is the judgement of truth or falsehood.

  • There are very few of us

    Look, we evolved as pack animals and those intuitions you feel but cannot introspectively analyze are intuitions that find comfort in a leader of the pack, membership in the pack, and running with the pack. We have atomized property and atomized individuals yet we are always pack(male) and herd (female) animals. There are very few of us that have had occasion to develop the mental discipline to create agency, and therefor understand these impulses as artifacts to be felt, understood, but not acted upon, just as violence, theft, or envy are to be felt, understood, but not acted upon. It’s not that I don’t understand the desire for a pack(herd) leader, membership in the pack(herd) and the feeling of running with the pack (herd). I do. It’s that like the impulse to commit other forms of crime exists in many if not all of us to some degree or another, but most of us learn not to act on those impulses. If you lack agency to do so that’s understandable, but then you lack the agency to make fully rational choices, and as lacking fully rational choices you are not fully human. And as such unfit for decisions demanding of rationality and agency. And that decision is the judgement of truth or falsehood.