Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • PLEASE THANK Ramsey Mekdaschi FOR OUR LIBRARY Seriously. I haven’t visited it la

    PLEASE THANK Ramsey Mekdaschi FOR OUR LIBRARY

    Seriously. I haven’t visited it lately, and I just did, and it’s phenomenal.

    It’s a significant contribution to our movement. (And it saves you a great deal of effort … especially library trips).)

    We are very selective in our process of inclusion. That said, it’s pretty complete. There are some sections I might add to (education, religion, a few biographies, and debate/argument). But otherwise it’s THE RESOURCE for an Aristocratic Education.

    Please request a link from Ramsey if you want access.

    INCLUDES THE REACTIONARY LIBRARY

    Ramsey has also included the Reactionary Library (novels) under “Narrative Arts”.

    Missing Categories

    – Occultists (please suggest if you have any)

    – Some of the essayists (please suggest )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 11:33:00 UTC

  • “WE FEW. WE HAPPY FEW” I haven’t been doing this myself, you know. It’s taken ev

    “WE FEW. WE HAPPY FEW”

    I haven’t been doing this myself, you know. It’s taken everyone who has contributed over the past few years. Every criticism. Every question. Every suggestion. Every compliment. All of it matters. Propertarianism has evolved from me, to me and Eli, into a group effort. We are doing outside the academy what can only be done outside of it. We are doing outside the church what can only be done outside of it.. And we are, of course, doing outside of the state, what can only be done outside of it. And we are – while more slowly than I would like – adhering to plan. We need our core of initial ‘Natural Law Prosecutors and Teachers’. And we’ll soon have it. We need our ‘bible’ (laws), and god willing (I live long enough) we will have it. Then we can go out and fight. We are creating something very special. All of us. One day at a time. One one idea, one definition, one phrase, one argument, one institutional solution, and one aesthetic ideal at a time. This is how it is done. It is always how it has been done. “We few. We happy few.”

    It is not only possible to save the west, but to restore it, evolve it, and to correct, and transcend mankind – just as we did with Sovereignty at our birth, reason in the ancient world, science in the modern world, and would have yet again had not the german civilization been truncated by the Anglos and Russians. And we can create as great a leap in human reasoning with testimonialism as we have with each prior evolutionary leap: empiricism, rationalism, and reason.

    These things seem impossible to their creators and advocates. But they are not. They are an intellectual product for a market frustrated by its absence. We need only improve our means of marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. And that is just a matter of time.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 10:03:00 UTC

  • Evolution makes sense. Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization) E

    Evolution makes sense.

    Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization)

    Evolutionary fragility doesn’t make sense(overspecialization).

    Complex systems (all life) benefit from stress, and develop fragility without stress. Because Lack of stress causes misallocation of resources. (Just try to think of some evolutionary system where this isn’t true).

    Humans can EXPRESS traits (specialize) by selection. We can specialize by selection without mutation or epigenetic variation. We can do so simply by increasing the reproduction of some part of any one or more of our distributions at the expense of some other part of any one or more of our distributions. And as long as the distribution(reproductive inventory) exists, we can change or reverse it.

    But reproductive expression is a slow process, and leaves us vulnerable to shocks (rapid changes) during which we might experience large losses. (fragility).

    Ergo a distribution not optimized for only the market order, but optimized for all possible orders is in fact ‘optimum’. And all attempts to create a single optimum are actually attacks on specialization and adaptation.

    All we can say at this point is that it appears that there is a point at which we succeed at sufficient sexual dimorphism and (maturity) pedomorphism, that further attempts produce negatives (the asian problems at the extreme and the african problem at the other extreme).

    So you might say “for people in my gene pool and in my social class who have these ambitions, at present these might be good pedagogical objectives” What you can’t say is that there exists some perfect, universal, individual ideal. Or at least, you can’t say it except in ignorance.

    We can see a range of social classes (in fact).

    we can see at least three main ruling classes (priestly/public intellectual, remunerative/commercial, and warrior/legal, and reactive/technical, on top of the familial.) And we can see a range of family structures needed for the abilities of different classes. And we see moral codes reflecting the needs of those different classes. We see a range of cognitive abilities that at about every ten points dramatically alters the cost and rate of learning good (>105) or bad (<95). We see depth of sexual maturity and rate of sexual maturity that causes variation in group needs. We see that different groups have been more (whites/asians) successful than others (everyone in the middle) and much more successful than others (equatorial peoples), at culling the size and rates of reproduction of their underclasses. And we can see that these differences accumulate in vastly different quality of life, because they permit vastly different forms of institutions. Hiqh quality high trust institutions are dependent upon reducing the cost of institutional enforcement – the underclasses, if for no other reason than it it is not possible to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy) if the market value of the goods producible by the polity are insufficient to pay for the incentives necessary to organize production voluntarily through a hierarchy of marginal differences in compensation.

    Every institution matters. Like Anna Karinnena’s limited humber of healthy families, or the the planet’s limited number of domesticatable animals, many things must function at once to produce positive ends – and the falure of any one leads to negative ends. Hence the uniqueness of western civilization in ancient and modern worlds. For ancient reasons we ourselves did not grasp, we made a subconsious choice in prehistory that caused us to produce many good things in concert quite my accident (or rather, without intent).

    MONOPOLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT SUBCONSCIOUS CHOICE. UNIVERSALISM IS A SEMITIC AND IRANIAN VALUE IN REACTION TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

    The west has always practiced the estates of the realm and provided different values for each estate. It is only under the lies of the enlightenment (or perhaps counter-enlightenments) that we used democracy and universalism to destroy that ancient bias.

    Sovereignty.Markets in everything.

    War and law for the aristocracy

    Philosophy and literature for the middle class

    Religion for the workers and the slaves.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 16:00:00 UTC

  • MS. “L” I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inh

    MS. “L”

    I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inherent in these choices. They are based on the assumption that human nature is all about self-interest. Not only is that a harsh view of human nature, it is also inaccurate. An important characteristic of human nature is gregariousness., and depriving people of the capacity is to associate with others is considered harsh punishment, even torture. That is why the use of isolation cells in prison in the Western world is regulated. So I might cooperate with others because I like associating with others–it’s fun!

    Curt Doolittle

    1) only a woman would say such a thing since it demonstrates the cognitive bias of ‘blindness to the distribution”.

    2) human nature *is* demonstrably entirely driven by self interest and we can find no instances where it is not – not only that, we can’t find it anywhere else in nature either. All cooperation is for self beneficial ends. Even kin selection still is for beneficial ends of one’s genes.

    3) the significant difference between humans and other creatures is that we can imitate one another (model one another), such that we can comprehend intention, and therefore cooperate on intentions. That fact aside, we evolved moral instincts to both encourage cooperation but punish parasitism (free riding). All herd and pack animals are gregarious to the herd/pack. Its just good kin selection.

    4) women must bear the high cost of offspring, are weaker and more vulnerable more often and they and their offspring are even vulnerable to other women so they purchase lots of insurance and they experience this insurance purchase as gregariousness. They do so to the point where when given access to political resources (commons) they attempt to give them away (see the dominance of women in government jobs, and in charity work, and the absence of women in the most competitive of professions). This is all nothing but genetic self interest. If creatures were not self-interested they would be exterminated by evolutionary pressures.

    5) Women lie to themselves largely because they have less agency in the control of their emotions. Men lie to others. But not to themselves. It’s too dangerous for them.

    MS. “L”

    2) The identities attached to the various options are stereotypes, especially the father stereotype.

    Curt Doolittle

    Stereotypes are the MOST ACCURATE measurement in the social sciences. So much so that we can pretty much claim that they are the ONLY accurate measurement in the social sciences.

    Female cognitive bias against stereotypes is driven by the need to believe her children are ‘good’ and ‘worth her investment’ regardless of their worth (or worthlessness). It is also because women who ‘stand out’ are destroyed by other women in the pack. Women work together to ensure the even distribution of resources. They hen-peck competitors to ensure they do not obtain more resources.

    MS. “L”

    3) Option #4, the Libertine option, is not even an option. If Libertine is left alone, L. will not be able to participate in the commercial market. If left alone (let’s say with just the immediate family), L. will not have the education, health or infrastructure necessary to participate in the commercial market. For instance, how many people in Liberia participate in the commercial market versus how many more would participate if education, infrastructure and health care (remember Ebola?) were freely available.

    Curt Doolittle

    This is not true. There are always marginal people on the edge of society. Yet again you’ve demonstrated distribution-blindness.

    Only women do this. Men never do. Unless feminized by a single mother.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 15:21:00 UTC

  • WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH? 1) “I agree not to subjugate you, pre

    WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH?

    1) “I agree not to subjugate you, prey upon you, kill you, if our cooperation is more beneficial than your defeat.”

    (male-aristocracy-conservative: “Father”)

    2) “I agree to cooperate and invest in common goods as long as it’s not against the interests of me, my family, kin, and people. Otherwise I choose not to cooperate, and i am happy to defend myself, my family, my kin, and my people.”

    (male-burgher-libertarian : “Brother”)

    3) “I agree to cooperate with the group as long as I am not left behind and obtain a share of production, but I will inhibit cooperation if I am left behind or denied a share of production.”

    (female – socialist: “Mother-Daughter”)

    4) “I want to be left alone, but allowed to participate in the commercial market.”

    (male – Libertine – anarchist )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 12:04:00 UTC

  • THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY. (important concept) (minor discussi

    http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmonsITS THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY.

    (important concept) (minor discussion of big box retailer phenom.)

    Philip Saunders : —“Read “Governing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. Very good explanation of the logical/game theoretic issues around managing common pool resources. Also refutes Garett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” argument.”—

    8 Principles for Managing a Commons

    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g. an irrigation system or fishing grounds), whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

    Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

    The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there.

    This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement.

    But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

    “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

    (Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the

    Unmanaged Commons.)

    Hardin explicitly stated that we should exorcise the “dominant tendency of thought that has… interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society” (Hardin, 1968). The Tragedy of the Commons argument

    was a reaction against – not for – the contemporary laissez-faire interpretation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace”!

    —-

    CURT’S EXPANSION ON THE MATTER:

    ie: proposing the choice of anarchic commons vs private property is just another a deception by framing: a false dichotomy.

    The problem is created when the shareholder agreement is unenforcible, or because no shareholder agreement is in place, or (which Ostrom Does Not Address) when credit (or fiat money) can be used to sufficiently compensate the existing users (shareholders) so that they will permit exhaustion of the resource under their management.

    This last example is what the ‘big box retailer’ phenomenon does that local communities object to. By destroying the local micro-economy, then growing until they bust the big box retailer created fragility to which the local economy could not recover.

    This scenario violates the natural law requirement that one cannot take any action that in the event of one’s failure, one cannot perform restitution for. If that were the case, all ‘ugly commercial architecture’ would have to be insured such that in the event of a collapse it was returned to natural state (clean land).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:55:00 UTC

  • Any man who fights with me shall be my brother

    Any man who fights with me shall be my brother.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:31:00 UTC

  • The left have to use outrage and offense because they cannot use the truth witho

    The left have to use outrage and offense because they cannot use the truth without exposing themselves. so in the absence of the ability to use the truth, they withdraw their cooperation and threaten to defect. We respond to threats of withdrawl (defection) as severely as we respond to threats or cases of cheating.

    This is a profoundly important concept in the study of the left’s behavior.

    There is a lot of research now confirming our reaction to cheaters and the high costs we are willing to pay to punish and prevent it. MEN are more sensitive to it.

    But there is less research on how to confirm our reaction to defectors and rejection. WOMEN are more sensitive to it.

    We struggle at all times to retain group integrity. We are wired for it. It affects us pre-cognitively, just as music affects us pre-cognitively (as a holdover from our pre-rational past).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 06:52:00 UTC

  • WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservative

    WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST

    —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservatives, and Progressives

    Libertarianism is concerned with access to markets and suppression of free riding. We do that better than them.

    Conservatives are interested in preservation of Capital and long term investment in families. We do that better too

    Progressives, when they aren’t batshit crazy, are interested in advancing the interests of the over looked and under represented.

    We have solutions to that problem too, as it’s a goal of increasing the property in toto of so called minority groups.

    Incremental suppression, full accounting and property in toto mean that the goals of all non Propertarians are best served by Propertarians.

    The reason they won’t debate is that we would expose both their goals AND their lies”— Con Eli Khan

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 16:49:00 UTC

  • Did you ever notice how most of us in the new/alt-right love each other and say

    Did you ever notice how most of us in the new/alt-right love each other and say so?

    I do.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-29 07:20:00 UTC