Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • There used to be value for the professors although that has diminished with the

    There used to be value for the professors although that has diminished with the financialization of the university mission – likewise it appears that the quality of teaching professors has declined by the measurement of research performance rather than student life performance.

    There is social value not accounted for in the material alone.

    There is a concentration of talent in university setting that does not exist outside of that setting and we learn through imitation of it and measurement of other environments by that standard.

    There is value in minimizing the number of inputs (distractions) – although we might argue that insulation from market forces produces worse consequences than minimization of inputs provide.

    Even if there is commodity value in the material, there is unsubstitutable value in tutoring – taking responsibility for the transition in state of each individual. There is very little if any value to administration.

    The relationship between Professors and students in the college system (a collection of professors offering their courses together on the open market).

    LIttle if anything is learned, retained, and practiced outside of the university setting (meaning universities primarily sort not train). There is very questionable measured value of a degree other than sorting and filtering (signaling).

    We could measure this by measuring first two decade performance. But the consequences for universities would be damning.

    The problem of the contemporary university is largely the conflation of vocational(craft), clerical (administrative), STEM (calculative), and religious(civic) services in one institution without variations in price, and the consequential redistribution of debt between those students.

    The conflation of student, research, and sport revenues at the expense of student debt only exacerbates this problem. So by and large the degree process has no empirical measurement other than filtering.

    If instead, universities had to carry student debt on behalf of the student, and could collect it only over 10 years as payroll deduction, and universities had to warranty their degrees just like other purveyors of goods and services, we would end the prior privileges we granted to universities as extensions of the church, and treat them as ordinary businesses (which is how they act) that produce a product that they must involuntarily warranty shall perform in the market.

    If that were the case, it is quite likely that the schools would re-parition, the costs of education would reflect lifetime returns for each discipline, and those people who pay the high cost of ‘university’ (calculative) degrees would return to statistical levels wherein only 10% of a normally distributed ethnically european population would enter university – because that is approximately the maximum percentage of the population that is capable of university level (calculative) work.

    Most importantly, the funding of marxist and postmodern propaganda produced by under sanction of the academy-as-replacment-for-church would be eliminated. etc. etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 13:26:00 UTC

  • THE CAUSE OF USA’S DEEP STATE MALINCENTIVES: ERROR. The USA ended up with the br

    THE CAUSE OF USA’S DEEP STATE MALINCENTIVES: ERROR.

    The USA ended up with the british empire and the international network of finance, trade, and law created by the british empire’s ‘globalization’ of knowledge, technology, law, finance, and trade.

    After the second world war, the ‘postwar consensus’ was that to prevent another world war, all nations should limit their actions to the development of ‘human rights’, and markets for commons (democracy) within their borders. Human rights being a pseudo-religious proxy for ‘property rights’. Democracy being a proxy for ‘commercial consumer capitalist state’.

    The problem is, that this cannot be achieved without direct rule. And without exploitation of the local people direct rule of the globe was too expensive in the postwar period. (a problem the soviets and chinese tried to solve through central control – to tragic ends.)

    So the USA’s postwar mission has been a failure for the simple reason that demographic groups are not equally able to produce sufficient returns to construct a voluntary network of specialization and trade because there is not enough productivity to pay for marginal incentives necessary to organize those networks. And there is too little experience with creating commons, and too little chance of preventing privatization of commons, to make consumer capitalist orders possible WITHOUT western rule.

    So it is more that the postwar ideals were institutionalized in the american and british and german systems of government, and we cannot exit them without revolution, because we lack a means of producing alternate incentives for our deep state (bureaucracy) that was specifically ‘bred’ for the purpose it pursues. (we see the uk still trying to create an empire at home.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 10:52:00 UTC

  • THE ‘LICENSING’ QUESTION The problem with licensing etc is that it’s a poor subs

    THE ‘LICENSING’ QUESTION

    The problem with licensing etc is that it’s a poor substitute for an Insurer. In other words, you regulate the market going in, rather than regulate the risk of harm. SImilar to the problem of Chinese Bureaucracy – or bureaucracy in general. There is absolutely value to demanding insurance that limits one’s actions to that for which restitution is possible. And there is absolutely value in institutional enforcement of the requirement that men can take no action that they may not pay restitution for. This is a simple test of reciprocity.

    in most of history, the government is the insurer of last resort. So licensing is a cheap (discounted) means of limiting insurance claims (harms).

    And no, we cannot claim rights to engage in any transaction the consequences of which we cannot pay restitution for, any more than we can claim rights to any action that we cannot pay restitution for.

    A license is a government-as-insurer-of-last-resort method of limiting the fraud, consequence, and externalities of actions that those who would seek to ‘learn’ or ‘profit’ by the externalization of risk of their failure. And the very high cost of dispute resolution and restitution.

    An requirement that one is covered by insurance and exposed to the courts, means that the government is no longer responsible for insurer of last resort (regulation), but that professions self regulate or risk prosecution in the courts, and regulation if they fail. This technique seems to work as long as the golden fleece of western civilization prevails: the courts as a priesthood of truth and reciprocity does not fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 10:06:00 UTC

  • “The current institutions of “science” are inherently stagnant and political, in

    —“The current institutions of “science” are inherently stagnant and political, instead of innovative and impersonal. Why should we ever expect government-funded teachers writing articles for journals that no one buys (except the very universities that employ the teachers), whose editorial staff are the very same teachers who write the articles, to ever replace current, flawed theories with new, expensive ideas?”—Michael Andrade

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 19:57:00 UTC

  • ON MONARCHS AND MONARCHY VS THEIR ABSENCE With Bill Joslin ==REACTIONS== —“Thi

    ON MONARCHS AND MONARCHY VS THEIR ABSENCE

    With Bill Joslin

    ==REACTIONS==

    —“This [post] is like Filmer vs Locke, but massively upgraded.”—Oliver Westcott

    —“Artfully articulated Curt. A fundamental post.”—Jim Leis

    ==REACTIONS==

    THE DISCUSSION:

    –“Whether our current models or monarchy, we’ve managed the Commons via rule of law. “— BIll Bill Joslin

    Well, we’ve managed them by rule by legislation, not rule of law. The difference between the ‘liberal’ and ‘monarchical’ order is reducible to the limitation of the monarchy by the common law, and the end of limitation of bourgeoise and the proletariat by the common law. In other words democracy sought to legitimize an END to rule of law, and its replacement with ‘whatever a majority can get away with’.

    But I think you mean rule by legislation and so I get your point.

    —“In our current models, this makes regulation, legislation a product for sale (incentive for parasitism upon the commons).”—

    Yes.

    —“With monarchy an incentive for coercion (incentive for predation).”—

    Incomplete sentence. Not sure I can guess what you intend. Monarchy has an incentive for predation? How would we measure that? How would we compare the consequences of the constitutional monarchies vs the constitutional republics?

    —“Deconflating management of the commons from rule of law (application of force upon the polis) would close the doors to both applications of natural law (humans responding to incentives) which run counter to cooperation or result in cooperation which inspires distrust and retaliation.”—

    I think I understand. Deconflating Government(commons) from judiciary(rule of law) restores the separation of rule of law (decidability in matters of dispute), from enforceable contract (legislation), so that legislation cannot circumvent rule of law (under natural law).

    —“The VC model, IMO, demonstrates advantage because it separates management from the rule (distribution of capital)… All things requiring applications of force stay in the hands of the judiciary (judicial supremacy) separated from the management of the commons – managers would be held accountable via the granting or removal of budgets based on their performance. “—

    Well, yes, but, I tend to think of it as solving the problem of calculability (accountability and measurement), as well as converting from a ‘redistribute the spoils of the private sector under the windfall of colonialism’, to ‘how can we invest in creating returns in the absence of the windfalls of colonialism?” In other words it converts a government from profiting from conquest and immigration to profiting from increases in knowledge, invention, and productivity.

    So we end up with an empirical organization very similar to the german princedoms. Which is the same conclusion Hoppe came to. Albeit with his Jewish/Rousseauian vision of man.

    —“No more lawmakers – only one law – natural law by which restitutions and punishments are written and rewritten by judges – legislation branches simply become a management staff with no power over the law (only over application of the budget). If they f#ck up, pull their budget (fire them) and give it to the more capable. Establish measures of performance based on the quality of the commons (high-trust vectors like degree of crime, the strength of an economy, degree of polis engagement), peg the budget based on the mean production of the polis (say 20-30% of GDP) – pay managers based on the mode income of the polis. All three provide incentives to increase trust, trade and production of the entire society. “—

    Yes.

    —“The first principle of any commons creation or preservation is the degree by which it aids in developing agency of the polis (education, critical thinking, physical health, emotional maturity, group loyalty, tendency to cooperate).”—

    Yes.

    —“Crap food may increase trade and GDP, but impacts good health. Crap cultural products (music, literature, entertainment) may increase trade and GDP but destroys social values, intellect and aesthetic values etc. Miley Cirus would be locked up and Lindsay Sterling or Jenny Wu supported etc. Drinking drugs and porn may increase trade and GDP but dissolve sociability, agency etc, and would be outlawed.”—

    This is a choice. From my perspective, if it’s inside the home and invisible to others it doesn’t matter, but it cannot be present in the commons, yes. The more park-like we can make the commons, and the more ‘impulse’ is confined to the privacy of the home, the better.

    —“The only way a monarch would provide the above is if that particular monarch chose to operate that way and this to me seems to be precarious and unstable.”—

    Not really sure what your definition of monarch is. A christian monarch was always bound by both church, common law, and competitors. And perhaps I am more conscious of (excellent) german princedom’s than (absurd) french monarchy. And it is the former, Lichtenstein, England, Denmark, I am using as my model of ‘monarch’. A judge of last resort. Not a manager.

    The problem is judge of last resort domestically and internationally. In other words, group processes regularly fail, and so Veto and Pardon (both via-negativas) must protect against the people’s fashion and the powerful’s folly.

    I have seen what has happened with monarchies and those without them and the jury of history is clearly on the side of an individual rather than a group (oligarchy), or a larger group (political class), or an even larger group (priestly caste). If for no other reason than an individual judge of last resort is easier to limit.

    However, I would prefer (although I understand others might not) a well-funded monarchy whose objectives were largely ritual and charity. Primarily because it denies the usurpation of that role at the top of the status hierarchy to others with renter’s incentives rather than owner’s incentives.

    —“Instead of partially abstracting ruling roles (like the Buddhists do by having their leaders assume the role of an archetype) we should fully abstract(institutionalise, incorporate) these function away from the individual which may assume the role and insulate the functions from arbitrary individual preferences.”—

    I think you mean, eliminate discretionary rule. And I think that it is far easier to do so if a judge of last resort exists who defends a position of pure veto and familial legacy than if the position is possible to obtain through positive incentives.

    So I see (and I think it is very hard to argue against this) that the christian monarchy under rule of law, under natural law, limited to powers of veto (and pardon – which are the same thing: negations) is a defensive position against the cunning and innovation of individuals using and abusing the processes of institutions.

    The purpose of the monarch is not to employ status and power, but to deny status and power. Not via positiva – but via-negativa.

    -Curt

    === A FEW QUOTES ===

    —“This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable….”—

    Winston Churchill, 8th April 1945.

    —“We should all bear carefully in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else. Any attempt to tamper with the royal prerogative must be firmly resisted.”—

    D G O Hughes, letter to The Daily Telegraph, 1st September 1998.

    —“The monarchy’s most important constitutional function is simply to be there: by occupying the constitutional high ground, it denies access to more sinister forces; to a partisan or corrupt president, divisive of the nation; or even to a dictator. The Queen’s powers are a vital safeguard of democracy and liberty.”—

    Sir Michael Forsyth, speech 26th January, 1999.

    —“Parliamentary monarchy fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all.”—

    Max Weber, German economist.

    —“The value of a constitutional monarchy is to provide a figurehead to embody a sense of nationhood beyond the divisions of temporal political argument. Republicans, who choose to give the impression that the British enjoy as much power as French peasants in the reign of Louis XVI, believe that in a democracy just about everything that moves has to be elected. This callow approach would result in a polarised and unpleasant society, of which the prime example is the United States.”—

    Melanie Phillips, The Sunday Times, 7th November 1999.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 12:27:00 UTC

  • IT’S JUST TRUE. THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. The Academy, Media, and St

    IT’S JUST TRUE. THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

    The Academy, Media, and State have been the enemy of the people since the media made the industrialization of lying possible in the war era.

    Is gossip news? Is rumor news? Is he said, she said news?

    What if we made every reporter, every publisher, every editor as responsible for their speech as we make CEO’s and CFO’s responsible for their financial reports?

    What if we made every reporter, every publisher, every editor, perform the same warranty of due diligence on their speech as we do every advertiser, marketer, pharmaceutical company, financial service provider, and industrial equipment manufacturer?

    What if we demanded full reciprocity – meaning that double standards were an act of fraud in public speech just as they are in the provision every other market good whether product, service, or information?

    What if we restored defamation to the courts, and removed the special provisions granted to the media – against a thousand years of the law, and against four thousand years of western civilization?

    Why do we grant reporters special privilege to gossip, rallying, shaming, defamation, double standards, loading and framing, pseudoscience, without consequence in the most important matters facing us, when we do not allow them in the most common of commercial claims?

    Why is not information provided for the purpose of FRAMING the political discourse (manufacturing opinion) not subject to the same requirements for due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit, that we subject all other disciplines to?

    I mean. The Jury is in on the media right now. It is profitable to carry on the “Russia” nonsense when it’s so far nothing but a fiction for the purpose of defamation, because in a hostile polity, defamation sells?

    Why are reporters allowed to market and profit from defamation that they cannot possibly pay restitution for?

    The reporters have taken over the roles of priests of the pulpit: who can engage in fictionalism that forces the public opinion by nothing more than environmental saturation (the industrialization of lying) with defamation independent of facts?

    The answer is clear: We need to make reporters, editors, publishers, as accountable for their words as we do everyone else, because they have proven that they are not capable of self regulation as are the medical and legal industries. So it sure looks like we are going to have professionalize the media, require training, require licenses, require insurance, and restore defamation, and extend the warranty that we require of all other market goods to the informational goods provided by the media.

    If that happens we will see a very different America, and a very different public.

    We will end our experiment in trust under the industrialization of lying we call the 20th century media.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ====

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/06/28/wolf-blitzer-potentially-dangerous-trump-call-media-enemy-people/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 19:38:00 UTC

  • There really isn’t a lot of value to universities other than the quality of prof

    There really isn’t a lot of value to universities other than the quality of professor that they can afford to hire, and the fact that there are very few really good professors working at any given time in any field.

    My expectation (and I think peterson and others have said this) is that the trend will obviously be solving the problem of certification, and the formation of digital universities so that professors can teach very large classes, use a cadre of graduates to grade the work, and profit from those classes, is the future. And I suspect a much higher quality of education in that future principally because we have access to the best.

    And can you imagine the earnings from 50K students per year instead of 50 or 100?

    Top professors will earn absurd returns.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 16:56:00 UTC

  • PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE) Half truth. (a lie a

    PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE)

    Half truth. (a lie actually). Basic Research: the atomic bomb, the space program, weapons research, and the large hadron collider, the human genome project, cannot be paid for by private industry.

    Private industry however can perform applied research, and is far better at it than government might ever be.

    And it’s pretty clear that government ‘lending’ for the purpose of private industry’s applied research is the best of all – IFF we capture returns for the polity (directly or indirectly) by doing so.

    In other words, ‘market failure’ is not really failure, but ‘market reach’ is limited. There is often extraordinary value either directly (war) or indirectly (jump starting applies research) or very indirectly (leading knowledge capture and localizing talent). That the private market has no way of capturing the benefits of directly, yet rewards the public market (commons) profoundly.

    (Hell, there are quite a few of us who knew how to solve the Hard AI Problem, the issue was that no private investors would possibly fund that big an investment risk, and no government agency could tell the difference between possible solution and bullshit. So AI that we see today should have (in my opinion) been solved over a decade ago.)

    —“According to the National Science Foundation, 29 percent of federal R&D money goes to universities, 29 percent goes to industry, and another 29 percent goes to researchers who work directly for federal agencies. About 10 percent goes to federally funded labs operated by private contractors.”—

    That seems about right to me by back-of-the-napkin analysis. I would prefer that we provide investments and capture returns rather than ‘fund’ whenever possible, but this is merely a choice of providing incentives to whom.

    My primary complaint is that we must pay to access research publications and that just needs to end immediately.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 13:54:00 UTC

  • NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE –“What if

    NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE

    –“What if I told you that any government ownership of industry is socialism?’— (a well meaning fool)

    That is not true. Any government ownership is separate from government management. Any management at cost (loss), at non-profit, and for profit determines returns for shareholders. The empirical evidence is that government investment in research and development, and in serving as financier and insurer of last resort has be disproportionately beneficial for peoples. We might argue instead that it is *necessary*. The only question is whether the government forces a monopoly or partial monopoly in favor of such an industry, and whether the management operates at a loss, at non-profit, or for profit. And whether those profits are distributed to employees, managers, or owners (citizens). In fact, we should, as citizens, ask why the majority of investment returns are not returned to the commons (government) for use by the citizenry when government (citizens) provide funding and insurance of last resort. In other words, the financial sector as it is structured today other than as early stage investors, appears to be parasitic upon those institutions (industries) for which the government serves as both financier and insurer of last resort.

    The question is whether government manages (bad) or not. Not whether government invests or not.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:59:00 UTC

  • THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media) —“Can you share your though

    THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media)

    —“Can you share your thoughts on ”anti-competitive” behaviour of dominant companies? If you have already shared your views on the subject will appreciate a link to your post on the subject . Thanks”— Rakesh Sahgal

    —“So why should we regulate these successful giants?”—Corey Harms

    Search (google), Converse (facebook), Acquire (Amazon), Dispute (Court), Repair (healthcare). What’s Missing? (a) finance/credit/banking, and (b) organization of production.

    In other words, aside from family(sex), invention, financing, and production – all of which require secrecy in the seizure of opportunities, and preservation of the markets, there is no reason why google, facebook, amazon/ups, are not utilities the same way that courts, energy/water/sewer/transportation/telecommunications, healthcare are utilities.

    Why? The problem is that advertising provides the same malincentives (corruption) that using representatives (politicians) provides. And the total spending on advertising in google, facebook, is trivial compared to their asset value as communication platforms. I mean, the cost of operating google and facebook outside of their playtoy (repeated failures) experiments on the shareholder dollar, is trivial.

    Advertising has value (well, truthful advertising does). However, the modification of search results and the modification of facebook content constitutes ‘disinformation’ (deception). And the suppression of free speech on the platforms to provide advertisers with more surface area for advertizing is again, a form of deception.

    As such the problem is eliminating the ability of ‘utilities’ to engage in revenue expansion by means of exploiting users rather than merely requiring advertisers to improve their products, services, and messaging.

    In other words, they need to favor the maximum truth regardless of profits, rather than the minimum truth necessary to maximize profits: they need to be regulated. And they need only be regulated to non-interference (non-aggression).

    As I’ve written about lately in my call for Facebook to be regulated, there is no reason (at all) why facebook cannot allow us to op-into socially taboo subjects and eliminate our ability to opt-into illegal subjects. The problem is that it would provide a degree of precision that advertisers would use to demand lower fees.

    So as far as I know, the future looks to me like there are a lot more public utilities. And I have my target on a lot of companies providing information and credit that need to be raised to the same standard as those companies that provide products and services.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 10:45:00 UTC