Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers

  • The Post-Love Civilization?

    THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families). Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms. The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list. During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority. In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons. Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source. And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated. Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end. And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels. Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.

  • The Post-Love Civilization?

    THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families). Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms. The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list. During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority. In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons. Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source. And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated. Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end. And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels. Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.

  • Deep States

    DEEP STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance….. THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS: 1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified. 2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives. 3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced. 4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them. THEORIES 1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level. 2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest. 3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect. 4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly). 5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts. GENERAL LAWS: 1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition. 2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions. 3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate. THE SCIENCE Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort. You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’. All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other. And that is what we see. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Deep States

    DEEP STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance….. THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS: 1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified. 2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives. 3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced. 4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them. THEORIES 1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level. 2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest. 3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect. 4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly). 5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts. GENERAL LAWS: 1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition. 2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions. 3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate. THE SCIENCE Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort. You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’. All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other. And that is what we see. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The Last Piece: Tying Together Markets in Everything…

    Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.

  • The Last Piece: Tying Together Markets in Everything…

    Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.

  • “Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able.

    —“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman

    If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people?

    Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype?

    Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:50:00 UTC

  • STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in a

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/04/think-deep-state.html#comment-159623059DEEP STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM

    Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance…..

    THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS:

    1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified.

    2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives.

    3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced.

    4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them.

    THEORIES

    1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level.

    2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest.

    3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect.

    4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly).

    5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts.

    GENERAL LAWS:

    1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition.

    2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions.

    3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate.

    THE SCIENCE

    Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort.

    You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’.

    All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other.

    And that is what we see.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:27:00 UTC