Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS Anarchic polities don’t exis

    A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS

    Anarchic polities don’t exist for two reasons: (a) they cannot obtain or defend territory, and (b) they cannot create sufficient commons to attract investment (people).

    How would an anarchic polity come to evolve and persist in competition with social democracy, state capitalist, or classical liberal governments?

    Anarcho-capitalism was a productive research program, but a condition of anarchy is uncompetitive and cannot survive competition from either Nomocratic (classical liberal middle class), social democratic(representative and working class), or state capitalist(command and peasant class) methods of government.

    I only work with what I can find a method to construct. Meaning, that an idea is meaningless unless I see an institutional means of constructing it. ergo: you can have rule of law, but not anarchism, because no polity without the ability to construct commons can survive competition.

    So I don’t really deal with ‘anarchism’ so much as that I rely upon nomocracy as the institutional system with which to prevent parasitism in the construction of commons.

    We can solve the problem of commons but we cannot create a polity without commons. In fact, that’s probably a logical contradiction, since a polity that can prevent occupation and conquest by any organized group must construct a commons to prevent it.

    So in that sense, an anarchic polity incapable of constructing commons is a logical as well as existential impossibility.

    So please give up on your fallacies. Either fight for liberty or acknowledge your servitude, but wishful thinking about anarchic polities is a modern variant on waiting for the resurrection and second coming.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 07:25:00 UTC

  • BTW: –“Tribal conflicts and tribal politics took center stage”– Most useful gr

    BTW: –“Tribal conflicts and tribal politics took center stage”– Most useful group evolutionary strategy available. No?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-04 12:16:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/683985453448572928

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/681305231087517697

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/681305231087517697

  • MORE AND MORE OF THE SAME Your child will be far better adjusted if he or she ha

    MORE AND MORE OF THE SAME

    Your child will be far better adjusted if he or she has three or more siblings than anything else you can do to help him or her. Thats’ just how it is. Kids mostly need attention, not things. They need enough not to feel bad, not enough to feel better than others.

    We should pay the productive to have kids and the unproductive not to.

    Instead we do the opposite.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-04 11:17:00 UTC

  • IS THE MOST USEFUL TOOL OF GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY (R/K) —“If you were on

    http://edge.org/response-detail/26766IDEOLOGY IS THE MOST USEFUL TOOL OF GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY (R/K)

    —“If you were on a selection committee tasked with choosing someone to hire (or to admit to your university, or to receive a prize in your field), and it came down to two candidates who were equally qualified on objective measures, which candidate would you be most likely to choose?

    __A) The one who shared your race

    __B) The one who shared your gender

    __C) The one who shared your religion

    __D) The one who shared your political party or ideology”—

    The answer is “D”.

    WHY? Because it is currently the most useful group evolutionary strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-04 07:15:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT: HOW ARE WE NOT WEALTHIER THAN CAVE MEN?” —“we are not wealthier th

    Q&A: “CURT: HOW ARE WE NOT WEALTHIER THAN CAVE MEN?”

    —“we are not wealthier than cave men, we have made all goods and services infinitely cheaper through cooperation in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.”—

    —“I obviously understand how a division of labor leads to higher productivity and more opportunities experienced by people, but I would think that’d still make each of us wealthier than cavemen.”—

    Rhetorical device to draw attention to the fact that our only existential wealth is time. And through cooperation we have radically increased the purchasing power of time, by radically increasing our productivity through a division of knowledge and labor.

    This statement illustrates better than any other that I have found, that we cannot increase the inventory of time (much), but we can dramatically increase the caloric transformation of the universe for our benefit by working in complex cooperative arrangements.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 16:18:00 UTC

  • Heroism requires contribution to the commons. But selfishness evident in Hollywo

    Heroism requires contribution to the commons.

    But selfishness evident in Hollywood scripts from the matrix to the remake of war if the worlds seeks to replace contribution to the commons (heroism) with cowardice, running away, hiding, evading, letting others die for you, and somehow attempting to cast this selfishness as heroic.

    It is why their movies don’t sell without spectacle.

    Because that are immoral.

    The people who lie.

    Expertise in lying is a genetic advantage v

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-29 17:59:00 UTC

  • THE EVOLUTION OF REVOLUTION 1) Rebel as Individuals Until We Can Rebel as Teams

    THE EVOLUTION OF REVOLUTION

    1) Rebel as Individuals Until We Can Rebel as Teams

    2) Rebel as Teams Until We Can Rebel As Bands.

    3) Rebel as Bands Until We Can Rebel as Armies.

    4) Rebel as Armies Until None of our Enemies Walk this Earth

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-27 04:03:00 UTC

  • The Silver Rule: Cooperation. The Golden Rule: Buying Options On Cooperation

    [T]HE SILVER RULE IS THE ORIGIN OF COOPERATION THEFT The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to lie, cheat, steal or impose harm. The summary of this ethic is: “Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.” The anglo saxons were right and the Christians wrong. MORALITY (RULE OF COOPERATION) The silver rule is necessary for cooperation. The golden rule buys options on future cooperation – but encourages parasitism. ACQUIRE We act upon that which we have acquired without imposition of costs upon that which others have acquired by doing the same. COOPERATE We act in concert to voluntarily produce common goods and services. WARRANTY We warranty the truthfulness of our speech by due diligence in the cleansing of error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit from our speech. INSURE We insure one another against the imposition of costs by collective suppression of free riding by collective prosecution of those who impose costs upon others. INVEST We invest in the construction of commons for the production of returns, and we deny one another the ability to impose costs upon them. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Silver Rule: Cooperation. The Golden Rule: Buying Options On Cooperation

    [T]HE SILVER RULE IS THE ORIGIN OF COOPERATION THEFT The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to lie, cheat, steal or impose harm. The summary of this ethic is: “Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.” The anglo saxons were right and the Christians wrong. MORALITY (RULE OF COOPERATION) The silver rule is necessary for cooperation. The golden rule buys options on future cooperation – but encourages parasitism. ACQUIRE We act upon that which we have acquired without imposition of costs upon that which others have acquired by doing the same. COOPERATE We act in concert to voluntarily produce common goods and services. WARRANTY We warranty the truthfulness of our speech by due diligence in the cleansing of error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit from our speech. INSURE We insure one another against the imposition of costs by collective suppression of free riding by collective prosecution of those who impose costs upon others. INVEST We invest in the construction of commons for the production of returns, and we deny one another the ability to impose costs upon them. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Paternalism and Classism, But Not Racism

    [I]f you adopt paternalism: that your kin are an extended family, and that you will work with other extended families to cooperate non-parasitically with all other extended families, and that we produce nations not states, then you get this wonderful ability for us to religion, culture, race, class and caste. We struggle with a certain problem: that while small nations are better for the development of community and mutual insurance, large states are materially valuable for the conduct of war and less so for trade bargaining. But once we have nuclear weapons it is very hard to violate borders without committing suicide. So there appears to be no reason for large states other than aggressive warfare. And yes, some territory is objectively better than other territory. And some genes are objectively better than other genes. And we start from different levels of development. But states are as much a barrier to development as they are to improvement precisely because of scale. Scale increases the ability to engage in corruption. With scale we find anonymity. With anonymity we have informational asymmetry. With informational asymmetry we have opportunity for corruption (privatization of commons). So you know, I’m a CLASSIST, in that i recognize the problem of carrying a large and counterproductive underclass, but I am not a RACIST in that I want all groups to transcend the animal, become fully human, and evolve into what we imagine as gods. And its possible. We had it right. Unfortunately we blew it. And now we have to fix it.