Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • War is morally justifiable – and morality is justificationary – as long as one i

    War is morally justifiable – and morality is justificationary – as long as one is increasing the scope of suppression of free riding in all its forms.

    The converse is also true.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the t

    (worth repeating)

    One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the tax of constraining their violence in exchange for the benefits of doing so. But if those benefits do not exist, then there is no reason to pay the tax.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 13:43:00 UTC

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • ON ANIMAL CRUELTY (worth repeating) —“My position is that there is no reason t

    ON ANIMAL CRUELTY

    (worth repeating)

    —“My position is that there is no reason to treat animals other than with the maximum possible care that we would demonstrate to our own children – but for pagan reasons: (a) they are a precious resource we do not understand but value, (b) because anyone who would NOT treat an animal with such care is a danger to the rest of us. And (c) that just as Harlan Ellison recommended, I see our aristocratic duty one of transforming the world into the greatest park possible – not because they are in any way equal to us – but because by doing so we demonstrate that we have become gods. And that is the central aristocratic ambition. It certainly is mine. To seek my place, and man’s place, among the gods.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-22 08:21:00 UTC

  • North America: Why Is The Dominant Racial/ethnic Narrative Between ‘white’ America And ‘black’ America When The State Of ‘native’ America Ought To Be Addressed First?

    There is no ‘ought’ in politics between groups.  Politics consists of: is, can, cannot between groups.  Oughts are an in-group question.  The reason being that while we may sacrifice for our kin (kin selection), we only cooperate with our non-kin (utilitarian).  If non-kin cause us sacrifice, then that is parasitism, not cooperation, and certainly not kin selection.

    The reason for the black white conflict is (a) the south was a very different civilization and the US government was funded by export duties provided by the south.  THe north was supplying manufactured goods to the expanding interior.   When Napoleon sold the Louisiana Purchase, it meant that the southern states with their agrarian biases, would gain allies in the newly created territories, and thereby overpower the northern states in government, causing a southern-run government. 

    Slavery was the ‘moral’ message that this political and economic conflict was couched within.  It was largely, if not purely, a distraction tactic.

    The defeat of the south aside, the major problem was the forcible integration of the races under the premise that we are genetically equal in ability and temperment, and that environment was the only factor (blank slate).

    Without that forcible integration it would not have been a problem.

    However, it turns out that the opposite is true, that between 60-80% of our behavior is genetically determined. That the remainder is not necessairly ‘environmental’ but something that we do not yet fully understand. And that groups (races, classes, tribes) form kinship alliances, and that within these alliances we see unequal distribution of talents – particularly, 1) impulsivity 2) aggression, 3) verbal intelligence, and less meaningfully, 4) Spatial intelligence. 

    So by forced integration we are unable to develop norms, memes, traditions, and habits that suit the individuals in the different groups. 

    These are the reasons for the conflict. No one complains about asians.  We complain about blacks and hispanics on one end, and jews on the other.  And native americans, because they are literally invisible, are irrelevant compared to the other conflicts.

    https://www.quora.com/North-America-Why-is-the-dominant-racial-ethnic-narrative-between-White-America-and-Black-America-when-the-state-of-Native-America-ought-to-be-addressed-first

  • Evolving High Trust AND Nepotistic Culture is Not Possible. Constructing It *IS*.

    [S]o, how does one construct a high trust NEPOTISTIC, inbred culture, instead of a high trust Non-nepotistic, outbred culture?

    Well, that’s very simple. Because organically evolving an institution is very different from intentionally implementing an institution.

    As such, the rule of law, under propertarian property rights of property-en-toto, forces institutional development of high trust, while allowing nepotism to continue.


    This is where we failed in the enlightenment. We didn’t understand….

  • Evolving High Trust AND Nepotistic Culture is Not Possible. Constructing It *IS*.

    [S]o, how does one construct a high trust NEPOTISTIC, inbred culture, instead of a high trust Non-nepotistic, outbred culture?

    Well, that’s very simple. Because organically evolving an institution is very different from intentionally implementing an institution.

    As such, the rule of law, under propertarian property rights of property-en-toto, forces institutional development of high trust, while allowing nepotism to continue.


    This is where we failed in the enlightenment. We didn’t understand….

  • So, how does one construct a high trust NEPOTISTIC, inbred culture, instead of a

    So, how does one construct a high trust NEPOTISTIC, inbred culture, instead of a high trust Non-nepotistic, outbred culture?

    Well, that’s very simple. Because organically evolving an institution is very different from intentionally implementing an institution.

    As such, the rule of law, under propertarian property rights of property-en-toto, forces institutional development of high trust, while allowing nepotism to continue.

    This is where we failed in the enlightenment. We didn’t understand….

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-18 02:35:00 UTC

  • “Good friends are rarely more distant than 6th cousins.”— Don Finnegan

    —“Good friends are rarely more distant than 6th cousins.”— Don Finnegan

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-08 01:39:00 UTC