Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES? —“Could you elaborate on

    Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES?

    —“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley

    No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

    SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.

    The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market.

    So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.

    I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 18:53:00 UTC

  • IN PRAISE OF TAXES 😉 (rulership is a profession, and one we must return to) Ass

    IN PRAISE OF TAXES 😉

    (rulership is a profession, and one we must return to)

    Assuming that taxes are used for the purpose of the creation and defense of the full spectrum of markets. And assuming we have juridical defense against taxes not used in creation and defense of those markets. And assuming that tax competition exists by freedom of exit and absence of collusion. And assuming one of the markets constructed is a market for commons. Then taxes are merely a commission on the use of violence to construct markets that enforce production and deny parasitism.

    In other words, the Aristocracy may profit via commissions on the construction, maintenance, and defense of markets just like the provider of any other form of good, service, or information.

    In fact, the wealth created by profits from the construction, maintenance and defense of markets, is possibly the most morally defensible form of profit a man, family, and clan, tribe, and race can demonstrate.

    So again, the libertarians, classical liberals, and progressive liberals, and Marxist socialist have been wrong. While the liberation from the mysticism of the church by the scientific enlightenment has been a boon for man, the attempts by the various other classes to create monopolies favoring their classes rather than markets for the cooperation between the classes, has been predicated on moral falsehoods, pseudoscience, and outright lies.

    Like the Spartans, Athenians, Romans, Germans, French, we must rule for our betterment and the betterment of man, or be ruled against our interests, and against the interests of man.

    Not only should we tax. We should revel in our taxes. We should maximize the returns on our shares. And continue to profit from the incremental domestication and eventual transcendence of man.

    We were mistaken. We need NO OTHER CAREER than rule. Rule and fee for rule, by commission on successful rule, is perhaps the greatest of our achievements, and a means by which we have, can, and shall profit.

    What must we do to return to rule?

    Restore Rule of Natural Law (Science)

    Restore the Judiciary. (Rule of Law)

    Restore the Monarchy. (Judge of last resort)

    Restore the Nobility (Governors)

    Restore the Knights (Regiments)

    Restore the Sheriffs. (Police)

    Restore the Militia (disaster, emergency, war)

    Restore the Artisans (artists and craftsmen)

    Restore the Laborers (of the commons)

    Restore the market for marriage

    Restore the market for commons

    Restore the market for rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 12:29:00 UTC

  • KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation

    KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS

    Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation states),

    Class System (informal institution – markets) or

    Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws),

    exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by east Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is.

    We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability.

    kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse.

    Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders.

    All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and therefore create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper.

    There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning.

    The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses.

    Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 11:50:00 UTC

  • (Let me throw in that Christian church dogma is inseparable from Monarchic Warri

    (Let me throw in that Christian church dogma is inseparable from Monarchic Warrior Law. The church never stood alone. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 13:53:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611443721211904

    Reply addressees: @PeanutArbuckle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611085565272064

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611085565272064

  • CAN WE COMPLETE THE GERMANIC PROJECT? FINALLY? —“We will complete the system o

    CAN WE COMPLETE THE GERMANIC PROJECT? FINALLY?

    —“We will complete the system of German Idealism.”—Z.A. Corbett

    i used to be against it, but now i see that we need both law, literature, and poetry. and that my work merely is the science underneath the literature and poetry. And that we require the entire corpus of science, law, literature, and aesthetics in order to provide each ‘method of sense’, from the intellectual to the political to the religio-spiritual a consistent message.

    This is what I learned from the study of religion. Successful religions do all. The issue is conflation. We cannot break the western tradition of conflation. So instead of one narrative mythos, we must have layers, from the scientific to the purely aesthetic. This is how we preserve western uniqueness but obtain the virtue of religions.

    So, the germans failed to resist christianity, they failed in the reformation to overthrow it, they failed in the enlightenment. they failed in the romantic period, they failed with national socialism.

    So hopefull this time we all will reunite germanic (eruopean) civilization. not by ONE Method. But by the POLYTHEISTIC method, of LAYERS of different forms of argument, rather than attempting anglo analytic alone, german rational alone, italian poetic alone, and russian literary alone.

    WE CAN FINALLY DO IT (I THINK).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 10:38:00 UTC

  • The Model Is Information – For All Thought.

      There is no steady state. the rules are not stateful, but adaptive. There is no ‘done’. genes and culture and norms and institutions all store past information that we can express when needed. It’s not that we are machines that adapt to a fixed set. but that we store a broad range of possibilities that we can express through genetic, cultural, normative, personal, political and institutional SELECTION. We are still thinking in terms of mechanical models rather than informational models. man and the universe are correctly represented as information.

    This is what Hayek was trying to tell us but he was too early, and the crisis too early. It took Turing and two or three generations of programmers to understand what he and popper had intuited: information is not only the model for the physical sciences, but we are part of the physical sciences, and information is the current model we must work from.

  • The Model Is Information – For All Thought.

      There is no steady state. the rules are not stateful, but adaptive. There is no ‘done’. genes and culture and norms and institutions all store past information that we can express when needed. It’s not that we are machines that adapt to a fixed set. but that we store a broad range of possibilities that we can express through genetic, cultural, normative, personal, political and institutional SELECTION. We are still thinking in terms of mechanical models rather than informational models. man and the universe are correctly represented as information.

    This is what Hayek was trying to tell us but he was too early, and the crisis too early. It took Turing and two or three generations of programmers to understand what he and popper had intuited: information is not only the model for the physical sciences, but we are part of the physical sciences, and information is the current model we must work from.

  • Definitions: Domestication vs Infantilization

    DOMESTICATION: The use of institutions to delay and reduce sexual maturity through intergenerational selection. (the reduction of impulsivity – largely through the reduction of testosterone and estrogen.) –vs– INFANTILIZATION: The use of information to delay and reduce cognitive ability – largely through the distribution of disinformation.

    Today’s youth have been infantilized, and too many are from undomesticated reproductive lines. A spartan is domesticated but the opposite of infantilized.

  • Definitions: Domestication vs Infantilization

    DOMESTICATION: The use of institutions to delay and reduce sexual maturity through intergenerational selection. (the reduction of impulsivity – largely through the reduction of testosterone and estrogen.) –vs– INFANTILIZATION: The use of information to delay and reduce cognitive ability – largely through the distribution of disinformation.

    Today’s youth have been infantilized, and too many are from undomesticated reproductive lines. A spartan is domesticated but the opposite of infantilized.

  • “Curt: Can you clarify the difference between infantilization and domestication?

    —“Curt: Can you clarify the difference between infantilization and domestication?”— Murray Sell

    Sure,

    DOMESTICATION: The use of institutions to delay and reduce sexual maturity through intergenerational selection. (the reduction of impulsivity – largely through the reduction of testosterone and estrogen.)

    –vs–

    INFANTILIZATION: The use of information to delay and reduce cognitive ability – largely through the distribution of disinformation.

    Today’s youth have been infantilized, and too many are from undomesticated reproductive lines.

    A spartan is domesticated but the opposite of infantilized.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-16 11:10:00 UTC