Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the

    I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.

    My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.

    So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.

    But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.

    But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.

    And this cannot and will not happen.

    Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.

    All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.

    The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.

    And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.

    The pendulum has swung as far as it can.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC

  • Most libertines are just raising arguments to justify free riding. Really. That’

    Most libertines are just raising arguments to justify free riding.

    Really. That’s all it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 14:17:00 UTC

  • SIMPLICITY: TRUTH IS ENOUGH Free speech in a culture of men who tell the truth i

    SIMPLICITY: TRUTH IS ENOUGH

    Free speech in a culture of men who tell the truth increases the velocity of cooperation and production. Free speech in a culture of men who systemically lie, by sophisticated means, temporarily increases consumption at the expense of trust and the consequential increases in innovation and production. In the 20th century science is somewhat immune from lying if not from their fascination with non-truthful speech, because so little (other than global warming) has been profitable to lie about and because like doctors and lawyers they protect their ‘ticket’ by persecuting offenders. It is this same ethic that is missing from politics. As such, without a systemic means of policing, free speech is simply a legalized endorsement of systematic lying for personal, organizational, political, and tribal gain. The only means we have of such a defense at the extra-professional scale of general political speech is the law. We may never be able to speak or know the ultimate truth on any matter, but thanks to science we have learned how to speak truthfully, and truthful speech is s required wherever others may come to harm, and politics, as the organized application of violence, is by definition the use of harm whenever used deceitfully.

    Truth is enough The law is enough. Property rights are enough. And voluntary Exchange is a sufficient vehicle for the achievement of human wants and needs.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 16:43:00 UTC

  • THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM Now what gets lost in my political rh

    THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM

    Now what gets lost in my political rhetoric at times is that my driving moral bias is **the prevention of conflict without incurring sacrifice**. In other words, by accident of a puritanical family with a lot of internal fighting between my rather spoiled martial upper-class alcoholic father, and my rather disciplined, humble, temperate, and poor catholic mother.

    The pacifist solution is to tolerate substantial losses in order to avoid conflict that has higher losses. And as long as you live poorly and reproduce vastly this strategy works. Conversely, for small numbers, who breed slowly, to live well, they must not tolerate sacrifice or parasitism, and must force productivity. Otherwise they must resort to predation. So this competitive strategy can be represented as a triangular compromise between population, prosperity, and the expense of either submission or prohibition. (Yes I should graph this out. But you know I am kind of overloaded at the moment so it will have to wait. Basically, something on the order of: x=population, y=technology, 00->XY demand is tolerance for parasitism, Y(n), X(n) curve is tolerance which should form an X with tolerance. )

    But so my moral disposition, my moral INTUITION turns out to be an involuntary advocacy for conflict reduction without parasitism.

    As such I see the world as a sort of donut,with the aristocracy from all cultures in the hole, and the classes radiating outward, with further difference from the center representing the degree of normative interdependence of people within a tribal group, and the

    Aristocracy is marginally indifferent the world around, if we mean, demonstrated ability in production, distribution and trade.

    So this means that bringing aristocracy together, and capital APART to people is just a matter of reducing the cost of capital enough, and allowing elites to accomplish this on the behalf of their own people without too much interference from one another.

    It is very costly and dangerous to bring lower classes tog ether, and it is very beneficial to bring aristocracy together. The cost of integrating people who require normative similarities, where those normative similarities reflect biological differences in ability and preference is simply too high for more than fractions of the population. However, the only reason to move people from low trust to high trust is the failure of local governments to construct rule of law sufficient that the people do not require relocation (hiring nobility, or moving to nobility), just as we cannot move capital to people because their upper classes have failed.

    Democracy is of no value whatsoever, since it merely means that we create nothing but negative international incentives. This is counter to common intuition and current mythos, but it is demonstrably true, and logically very difficult to counter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:03:00 UTC

  • PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT –“Should we only promote exchanges t

    PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

    –“Should we only promote exchanges that are net Pareto improvements?”—

    I think that we should only facilitate exchanges that produce no (known) negative externalities (those which cause involuntary transfers); and that if we facilitate exchange in such a matter, we will achieve a Nash equilibrium. (as we did with monogamy, ad as we have with the market.)

    But I think a Pareto optimum is a Keynesian, Platonic, Analytic fallacy: such a thing is unknowable, and causes negative externalities no matter what we do. Our problem is not good collective decision making (the fallacy of the enlightenment) but facilitating moral exchanges between classes with heterogeneous interests – just as we do in the market.

    The problem is that we cannot produce all goods and services in the market because someone always experiences loss of opportunity. Whereas in the production of commons we are generally prohibited from the consumption or privatization of the commons – and as such the majority of effort going into the commons is to pool capital and prohibit its consumption. The incentives of the market for goods and services are the precise inverse. Competition for and consumption of commons merely prohibits their construction by disincentivizing their production. Whereas in the market, lost opportunity (or selling at a lost) is useful information that provides incentives to make better use of your own and others’ resources.

    The ‘we’ if their is to be such a thing in government, is to advocate for exchanges, not monopoly rules by which we advance the interests of some by mere majority rule.

    Each imposition by force, is a lost opportunity for exchange. Each forced imposition, constitutes a lost opportunity for exchange, which in turn is a loss of opportunity to create a moral society free of involuntary transfers.

    The only law is thou shalt not steal or cause loss, directly or indirectly. As such all political decisions are decidable. The poor can always contribute. The fallacy is that their contribution must come in in the production of goods and services, rather than in the production of the voluntary organization of production that we call morality, property rights, and the market. It also assumes that maintenance of the commons (which is what makes a place beautiful and desirable) is the province of those who engage in production of goods and services, rather than those who engage in the production of the commons both physical, and normative, and legal: the voluntary organization of production.

    Arguing otherwise is to say that someone must pay the high costs of forgoing consumption (theft, free riding, privatization, rent seeking) for permission to enter the labor force, rather than permission to participate in the market.

    We do it wrong so to speak. That does not mean we cannot do it right.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:28:00 UTC

  • IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as

    IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS

    In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as if it were a physical science, rather than **THE** science of that branch of cooperation that is unavailable to our direct perceptions, economists have in fact, introduced and imposed upon man, particularly western man, systemic immorality. This is the most immoral age. For a reason: because economists and left philosophers made it our most immoral age. And they did it with the pseudoscientific use of statistics, divorced from the actions necessary to produce economic phenomeon. Had Economists understood operationalism and testimonial truth we would not have produced the immoral century.

    But we did. And it’s my job and that of others to end it – forever.

    Economics must be the study of morality or it is the imposition of immorality.

    Unless you are an immoral advocate of theft, immorality and dysgenic then you there is no counter argument.

    (Do you see how I am correcting Mises and Hoppe yet?)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:29:00 UTC

  • IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING? And isn’t aristocracy

    IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING?

    And isn’t aristocracy familial paternalism, tribal paternalism, national paternalism?And isn’t the suppression of lying a parental, communal, and aristocratic necessity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 02:58:00 UTC

  • Kirill says to me” the secret to all business partnerships is giving your partne

    Kirill says to me” the secret to all business partnerships is giving your partners more.” Which I take as an ESL phrasing. Then he says that it’s about trust. And feeling you can say the truth.

    I think it’s that you try to make your partner happy and successful no matter what -even at your own expense . And you are confident that your parter will do the same.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 13:04:00 UTC

  • WHY THE NORDICS ARE ALTRUISTIC: KIN SELECTION. THE REASON IS THAT FINLAND, like

    WHY THE NORDICS ARE ALTRUISTIC: KIN SELECTION.

    THE REASON IS THAT FINLAND, like the nordics, is small F(5M people), homogenous, lutheran, population that is one of the least diverse, most outbred, and most docile, in the world, and like the English, Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes live on a virtual ISLAND. The dutch and the english occupy both sides of the english channel and are surrounded by kin. Germany is the only other european culture to preserve the island behavior at scale, with competing neighbors. THis is because germany had both north sea trade, and continental trade through the alps TO the north sea peoples. All other cultures that have achieved universalism have been island peoples or virtual island peoples who can make use of extending kin selection behavior (truth telling and altrusim) witohout funding competitors. Humans do not fund competitors. They compete with, wall off, fight or kill them. And if they don’t they will be exterminated. (and they all have been wherever they did not).

    Finland, norway, sweden, denmark, scotland and irland barely make a good sized american city each. If you broke the USA in to 5M person regions, with the ability to exclude people they dont want (parasites) then the vast majority of those areas would rapidly demonstrate thebehavior of 5M homogenous protestant peoples.

    YOU CANNOT CHANGE THIS: Kin selection is a genetic bias that all humans demonstrate. THe difficulty for all populations is that they must crush corruption, and small populations are better at crushing corruption. The smaller the population the easier it is to crush corruption.

    Parasitism (forced redistribution across non-kin) is universally intolerable, and corruption increases and factionalism increases if you try to do it.

    PERIOD. END OF STORY. YOU HAVE SMALL HOMOGENOUS PROTESTANT POLITIES PRACTICING THE ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY OR YOU DO NOT HAVE LIBERTY

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 09:41:00 UTC

  • Rather than seek approval or consent, offer support, kindness, affection, love,

    Rather than seek approval or consent, offer support, kindness, affection, love, and education to fellow moral men. Never cede control to the immoral – which is what asking, begging, working for, approval and consent give him. Instead, spend your efforts on the true, good and beautiful. Never compromise or suffer the immoral, unethical, the deceitful, and the fool. Merely defeat, conquer, punish and ostracize the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 02:07:00 UTC