Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • YOU SEE THE TEMPLARS HAD A GOOD DEAL: ROOM AND BOARD. And you see ISIS doing the

    YOU SEE THE TEMPLARS HAD A GOOD DEAL: ROOM AND BOARD.

    And you see ISIS doing the same.

    And we see Ukrainian Volunteers dong the same.

    And you saw american revolutionary soldiers doing it.

    And you saw european soldiers throughout history do it.

    The central problem of raising an army is not weapons, it is merely the money necessary to supply room and board for those men who prefer to fight for change rather than do whatever it is at their disposal.

    If you ask men to bring a weapon, they will. But you must be able to feed, shelter, and direct them.

    Once you have men and weapons, you have an army, and an army can take whatever it wants or needs. And by the act of merely taking, it disrupts the economy so significantly that little else need be done.

    What the Islamists do well is (a) live on few resources, and (b) distribute money effectively through channels, and (c) make use of a vast surplus of men.

    Western men are in surplus. Money, Distribution, and Communication are not complicated.

    Moral authority. A set of Demands, A plan. Room and Board.

    You see, the more advanced an economy, the more fragile it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-19 06:06:00 UTC

  • THE EVOLUTION OF …. EVERYTHING MAN USES TO COOPERATE (very important concepts)

    THE EVOLUTION OF …. EVERYTHING MAN USES TO COOPERATE

    (very important concepts) (important piece)

    Weber was right, in that the evolution of civilization was achieved through improvements in various kinds of ‘calculation’ – a term which will not sufficiently convey the depth of importance or meaning to the uninitiated.

    CALCULATION (ability to ‘think’ and plan)

    – Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory

    We are somewhat aware of the vast leaps in Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory: that arose from Writing, Numbers and Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Calculus, and Statistics (which are different disciplines).

    – Planning (production)

    Those of us who learn economics understand the institutions of Money, Prices, Credit, Interest, Banking, Bonds, Stocks, Financial Insurance, and how they assist us in cooperating at vast scales.

    – Evolution and Equilibria (discovery)

    And some of us are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the concept of evolution (self organizing). This is not limited to biological evolution (information organization in equilibria), but also to economics(information organization in equilibria), but also to the evolution of scientific knowledge (information organization in equilibria) in which knowledge is that which survives from free association, to hypothesis, to theory, and to law;

    – Existence (operational naming)

    And I think fewer people are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the act of programming (existential necessity), and database development (existential dependency),

    – Truth (removal of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception)

    and very very few of us are aware of my work in Truth (testimonial organization in equilibria) in which Truth is what survives criticism, and testimony a warranty of due diligence, not a warranty of truth itself, and ultimate truth merely the most parsimonious statement possible.

    PRODUCTION OF REPRODUCTION

    And some of us in familial organizations:

    – State Enforced Individual Monetary Union (feminism)

    – Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear

    – Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family

    – Traditional Family, Communitarian Family

    – Hetaeristic Monogamy

    – Pairing Family, Serial Marriage

    – Punaluan Family

    – Consanguine Family

    PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION ITSELF

    And some of us are aware of the evolution in productive organizations:

    – Military Hierarchical (simple production)

    – Bureaucratic Hierarchical (capital production)

    – Professional (talent production)

    PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCING COMMONS

    Some of us are aware of the vast difference in state organizations:

    – Authoritarian Socialist Economy. ( Dysgenic – Minimize Holdings )

    – Social Democratic Mixed Economy ( Dysgenic – maximize takings )

    – Private Capitalistic Libertarian Economy (Eugenic – maximize holding)

    WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE IN ORGANIZATION (reputations)

    – Cooperation (ordinary cooperation in the process of production) (personal reputation in memory)

    – Religion (normative promise) (demonstrated behavior) ostracization

    – Law (criminal reputations) (writing and record keeping) Violence

    – Credit (economic reputations) (computers) deprivation of consumption

    – ‘Software Reputations’ (the most detailed yet – the internet) ???? (deprivation of relations)

    DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN?

    We already constitute the equivalent of a hive mind.

    The problem for our collective consciousness is in reducing error.

    And that error is the product of dysgenia.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-19 05:09:00 UTC

  • Parasitism is as Natural as Cooperation: Man Follows Incentives

    [P]arasitism is just as natural as cooperation. And so the function of the law is to discover new forms of parasitism so that the polity can insure one another against the new forms of parasitism. So it is not simply natural to cooperate, it is natural to cooperate as much as incentives allow, and to act parasitically as much as incentives allow. And in almost all cases production is more burdensome than parasitism. So, we create institutions to raise the cost of parasitism such that all incentives favor cooperation. We force everyone to participate in the market in order to survive. And if we don’t grasp this we make the same mistake as the Enlightenment peoples, and in particular the classical liberal libertarians, and the cosmopolitan libertines: that man is good and oppressed, rather than man follows incentives and he needs to be prohibited from parasitism so that his only choice is production. Not just because his participation in production increases productivity, but because his abstinence from parasitism decreases transaction costs, risk, and increases its corollary, trust. In this way, prosperity is created not so much by the emphasis on the good, but on the prohibition of the bad, leaving only good actions available to man. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Parasitism is as Natural as Cooperation: Man Follows Incentives

    [P]arasitism is just as natural as cooperation. And so the function of the law is to discover new forms of parasitism so that the polity can insure one another against the new forms of parasitism. So it is not simply natural to cooperate, it is natural to cooperate as much as incentives allow, and to act parasitically as much as incentives allow. And in almost all cases production is more burdensome than parasitism. So, we create institutions to raise the cost of parasitism such that all incentives favor cooperation. We force everyone to participate in the market in order to survive. And if we don’t grasp this we make the same mistake as the Enlightenment peoples, and in particular the classical liberal libertarians, and the cosmopolitan libertines: that man is good and oppressed, rather than man follows incentives and he needs to be prohibited from parasitism so that his only choice is production. Not just because his participation in production increases productivity, but because his abstinence from parasitism decreases transaction costs, risk, and increases its corollary, trust. In this way, prosperity is created not so much by the emphasis on the good, but on the prohibition of the bad, leaving only good actions available to man. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Only Objective “Good” is Trade. Everything Else is Preference

    [M]ale – Female relations are a trade between competing reproductive strategies. Feminists seem to have the opinion that their strategy is superior despite the fact that all civilization seems to have been constructed to control women’s gossiping, lying, sexual and reproductive excesses as much as it has been to control men’s theft, violence, murder and war. We compromise. If there is no compromise with women then we have the alternative to return to our natural state where women are mere cattle herded by men, with the only reprieve provided by affection by women and defense of daughters and mates by men. What do you think the entire damned world does? Europeans treated women much better than others for historical reasons that are very hard to reproduce.

  • The Only Objective “Good” is Trade. Everything Else is Preference

    [M]ale – Female relations are a trade between competing reproductive strategies. Feminists seem to have the opinion that their strategy is superior despite the fact that all civilization seems to have been constructed to control women’s gossiping, lying, sexual and reproductive excesses as much as it has been to control men’s theft, violence, murder and war. We compromise. If there is no compromise with women then we have the alternative to return to our natural state where women are mere cattle herded by men, with the only reprieve provided by affection by women and defense of daughters and mates by men. What do you think the entire damned world does? Europeans treated women much better than others for historical reasons that are very hard to reproduce.

  • (life lessons) My wife Allora and I used to shower together in the morning befor

    (life lessons)

    My wife Allora and I used to shower together in the morning before work. It was the best talk-time for our relationship. You get at least 15 minutes of relative verbal intimacy during the day to talk about what’s on your mind, get some hugs, and make sure you are both ‘in sync’ on your lives. Smart woman. She was a very smart woman. About everything.

    My first wife Kitty’s parents had six kids and so they spent a weekend at a hotel once a month. Which I thought was brilliant. But for me, for us, the 15-30 minute showers in the morning, were better for staying mentally close.

    Since I have a little trouble seeing emotions, and I have more trouble understanding my own, talking intimately with the woman I love is not only desirable but a necessity. And it’s one of the reasons I think we had what most people considered an enviable relationship.

    I loved being married. I love that level of intimacy. I don’t feel ‘complete’ without it. And maybe that is why I worship the women in my life so completely.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-17 00:46:00 UTC

  • THE OVERBURDEND BOOMER MARRIAGE When you are not geographically rooted, not root

    THE OVERBURDEND BOOMER MARRIAGE

    When you are not geographically rooted, not rooted in family, and not rooted in friends and relations, then your spouse, must carry the full burden to providing all relationship needs.

    When you have one child you attempt to achieve perfection with him or her, and can believe the fallacies of the blank slate, versus when you have three to six children and you achieve with your portfolio of offspring the best that you can while realizing that each is born with his or her immutable temperament.

    Change Companies and Careers Not Geography

    Build Relationships rather than Accumulate Things.

    Build portfolios rather than over investments.

    Build family rather than square footage

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:41:00 UTC

  • PARASITISM IS AS NATURAL AS COOPERATION: MAN FOLLOWS INCENTIVES Parasitism is ju

    PARASITISM IS AS NATURAL AS COOPERATION: MAN FOLLOWS INCENTIVES

    Parasitism is just as natural as cooperation. And so the function of the law is to discover new forms of parasitism so that the polity can insure one another against the new forms of parasitism.

    So it is not simply natural to cooperate, it is natural to cooperate as much as incentives allow, and to act parasitically as much as incentives allow. And in almost all cases production is more burdensome than parasitism.

    So, we create institutions to raise the cost of parasitism such that all incentives favor cooperation. We force everyone to participate in the market in order to survive.

    And if we don’t grasp this we make the same mistake as the Enlightenment peoples, and in particular the classical liberal libertarians, and the cosmopolitan libertines: that man is good and oppressed, rather than man follows incentives and he needs to be prohibited from parasitism so that his only choice is production.

    Not just because his participation in production increases productivity, but because his abstinence from parasitism decreases transaction costs, risk, and increases its corollary, trust.

    In this way, prosperity is created not so much by the emphasis on the good, but on the prohibition of the bad, leaving only good actions available to man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 03:48:00 UTC

  • First Principles: Parasitism is Bad, Cooperation is Good

    [F]IRST PRINCIPLES: PARASITISM IS BAD, COOPERATION IS GOOD. Curt Doolittle I start with parasitism is bad. Erskine Fincher You can’t start with “X is bad.” You first have to define your standard of good and bad, and before that you need to explain why one even needs a standard, and before that you need to explain how you are able to know any of that. The problem isn’t that individual libertarians don’t have answers to these questions. The problem is that the Libertarian Movement itself is agnostic on the subject of foundational philosophy, because it wants to accommodate the widest number of “allies” possible, even if those allies hold contradictory opinions that undermine its position. That’s why you end up with prominent cranks like Augustus Sol Invictus, and presidential candidates like Ron Paul, who want to restrict a woman’s right to abortion, and entire factions of states’ rights advocates who think that while denying individual rights at the federal level is bad, denying them at the state level is perfectly fine. Curt Doolittle Erskine, you absolutely can start with x is bad if x is the reason humans cooperate, and without x they won’t cooperate. Because the incentive to cooperate, and the disincentive to cooperate, are the first principles of all cooperation. I used to think libertarian thought was fairly good, but it’s actually a half truth just like everything else. Erskine Fincher Why is non-cooperation bad? What do you mean by cooperation? What do you mean when you say that something is bad? What makes a thing bad? Curt Doolittle What makes non-cooperation bad: 1) disproportionately diminished productivity 2) deprivation 3) competitive incompetence 4) conquest 5) extermination. What makes something bad in the abstract 1) dissatisfaction 2) deprivation 3) suffering 4) conquest 5) enslavement 6) death Then we have the difference between oral statement and demonstrated action (common in all walks of life) People say that they prefer something to the current state but demonstrate that they do not. People prefer complaining about others rather than expending the effort to change their lot. Libertarians prefer social democracy to libertarian society. Demonstrated preference differs from demonstrated ‘goods’. People demonstrate a preference for acquisition, inventory, and experience at all times. What they demand comes at a cost. Yet they are unwilling to pay for it. So they do not clearly prefer it despite their protestations. Erskine Fincher I’m not going to go through each one of those. Let me just take one as an example of how you are not getting down to fundamentals. Why is deprivation bad? The Spartans considered it good. Christian monks considered it good. Deliberate self-deprivation has been practiced by lots of groups as a way of disciplining their desires. Is that bad? If so, why? Curt Doolittle (lost post?) Is it deprivation if you choose it? It’s only deprivation if you don’t choose it. Curt Doolittle Let me start it differently: Why don’t I kill you and take your territory, women, goods, enslave your children? That is a good for me. Clearly a good for me. Why not? (This is the Genghis Kahn argument that helps illustrate the fallacy of Rothbard’s Crusoe’s Island, and the existence of rights prior to contract.) Curt Doolittle (It helps to illustrate the difference between a personal good and an aggregate good. And while it may seem difficult to determine an aggregate good ‘by starting in the middle’ we then see that by starting at the first cause, limits the choice in the middle.) Curt Doolittle So you’re saying that if I think I can kill you and take your things then that killing you and taking your things is a good. And that if I cannot that cooperating with you is the next best good? And that boycotting you is the least best good? There are only three choices right? Take, cooperate, ignore? Erskine Fincher Because the initiation of force is a violation of the principle of individual rights–a principle which supports your own life–and a negation of reason, which is man’s fundamental tool of survival, and that which undermines your survival cannot be good. Curt Doolittle Well no such principle exists unless we enter into a contract constructing it. (CD: note that a ‘principle’ exists for the purpose of decidability) So Why does Genghis Kan not just kill you, take your women, enslave your children, take your territory and goods? Why not? Erskine Fincher Does the Law of Gravity not exist if we don’t enter into a contract constructing it? Curt Doolittle it is ‘good’ for him to do so, in the sense that it is personally preferable. But the term ‘good’ does not mean preferable, it means a common good. Erskine Fincher You are confused about the nature of moral principles. They are not subjective social constructs. Erskine Fincher They are requirements for human life. Curt Doolittle We don’t create gravity but we create contract provisions. You are confusing a natural law of cooperation without which we cannot cooperate and gain the benefits of cooperation with the fact that cooperation is only beneficial when conquest is not more beneficial. No they are not requirements for human life erskine, they are requirements for the construction of a division of labor. If the Khan kills you and takes your things and rapes your women and then 15% of all asian people are his offspring then by any measure that is ‘good’ for him. There are what, three men that most of europe is descended from? Clearly it was ‘good’ for them. Erskine Fincher Well, you’re wrong, but I can’t stick around to explain why. Need to get my shower and leave the house. I have monsters to slay, and worlds to save. Take care. Curt Doolittle So: (a) since there are only three choices conquest, cooperation, and boycott, of these, conquest the shortest best at the highest cost, cooperation longest at low cost, and avoidance at no cost but no gain (b) cooperation is a good because the returns on cooperation are much higher than non-cooperation. (the Kahn did not kill and rob the Chinese because it was more profitable by far to tax them (just as it is for current governments). (c) It is convenient to start (as does Hoppe) with the assumption of cooperation as a steady state. Whereas cooperation is a PREFERENCE, not a necessity, and not an assumption. (d) the way we make cooperation preferable is to raise the cost of conquest, and maintain the disadvantage of boycott. In this way we create a world in which the only rational choice is cooperation. We do this through insuring one another against conquest and prohibiting one another from participating in trade with those who we boycott. (e) But we must limit the harm done in cooperation, since man readily engages in parasitism under the cloak of the promise of cooperation: killing, harming, stealing, blackmail, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by obfuscation, fraud by indirection, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, and conquest. So we construct property rights: so that we promise to insure one another against infringement upon them. Property rights exist as an insurance by a group to protect a range of property, that is a subset of possible property (that which I bear cost to obtain without imposing cost upon the inventory of others). So we insure one another. (f) So the production of rights (mutual insurance) is and always will be a collective effort not an individual one. BTW: It is beyond conceivable that I err. Sorry. And it might sound arrogant but it’s inescapable. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine