Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRA

    SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRADES.

    (computer science, programming, sociology of technology)

    Bob Martin, like many of the Agile leadership, dreams of a return to the original history of programming as an art practiced by professional scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. His hopes that programming will join the ranks of the other professions: accounting, law, and medicine. He correctly identifies the problem that given the rate of expansion of our industry, the exaggerated demand, and the constant entry of many young people means that the majority of programmers are unprofessional. Meaning that they are unable to manage themselves, and take responsibilty for the scope, time, budget, and quality of deliverables.

    But while where bob envisions a profession, I am absolutely certain I see a trade: a hierarchy of skill sets from cleanup crews (support desks) to maintenance crews (IT departments), to refurbishment crews (ongoing development and maintenance), to construction crews ( ordinary web, enterprise, and application developers) to retail architects (small systems) to commercial architects (large systems), to specialty suppliers (drivers, frameworks, tools, IDEs, operating sytsems), to Monumental architects (for government and the international industries). The secret in these industries is that it’s the suppliers, not the architects or the craftsmen that possess the material knowledge, that architects and craftsmen rely upon.

    Nick Carr predicted the deflation of IT years ago and IT has already become a tradesman’s occupation in a hierarchy culminating in hosting centers. He did not address programming specifically that I recall.

    Perhaps we might consider advanced degrees, but we already have them. Unfortunately those degrees are just as unpredictive of market survivability as architectural degrees are predictive of market survivability. The only proof of market surivability is the market, or insurance and bonding where there is skin-in-the-game.

    I can easily see a future where there is an equivalent to a building code for software, and architects and development leads are bonded. this would create a semi-professional trade where chaos reigns.

    The problem is of course, that while we can establish codes for recreational, residential, light commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial, agrarian, grazing and forresting, we would have to also produce codes for each of these. ISO9000 makes very little sense really, just as many other regulatory hurdles that claim some degree of extreme, make little sense – and we would just create a black market for the offshoring of software development.

    Quality and Certainty increase price dramatically. And software is still too useful and too cheap, and without sufficient damage – at least in commercial settings – to drive up its cost to the point where it’s not worth taking the risk for liability reasons rather than cost reasons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kieve, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 04:28:00 UTC

  • “NOMOCRATIC MARKETISM” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I’m a ‘Marketist’, which is reducibl

    “NOMOCRATIC MARKETISM” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

    I’m a ‘Marketist’, which is reducible to nomocracy(rule of law) with formally institutionalized markets for (a) production of commons, (b)production of goods and services, and (c) production of reproduction (families).

    The last may sound odd, but it means only that the family is the central object of certain policies, and as formal an institution as law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 01:03:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATISM AND THE CENTRAL OBJECTS OF LAW, POLICY, AND COMMONS. Conservatism i

    CONSERVATISM AND THE CENTRAL OBJECTS OF LAW, POLICY, AND COMMONS.

    Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families.

    So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism.

    So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements.

    There are four functions that play for and against your statement.

    First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost.

    Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches.

    Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see.

    Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them.

    THEREFORE

    The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts.

    The central object of policy is the family.

    The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity.

    Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending upon the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine,

    (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston and Seattle USA) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-27 02:22:00 UTC

  • Distributed Prosecution WikiLeaks holds and distributes evidence (as do other so

    Distributed Prosecution

    WikiLeaks holds and distributes evidence (as do other sources).

    Wesearchr.com and other sources dig for evidence (like the guys who obtained the DNC emails.)

    Prosecutors make arguments based on the evidence: Mike Cernovich, Milo, Vox, etc. (journalism)

    Once the evidence is reviewed and the judgement made, distributed teams go to work to dispense punishment: shaming (trolls), pressuring corporations/advertisers, getting people fired, etc.

    This system is organically organizing to acquire evidence, debate it before a jury and render judgement, because the old system has failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-25 09:22:00 UTC

  • Children speak of morals and beliefs. Adults speak of incentives and institution

    Children speak of morals and beliefs. Adults speak of incentives and institutions. It’s not hard to separate argumentative boys from men.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 05:55:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756729450427998208

  • Children speak of morals and beliefs. Adults speak of incentives and institution

    Children speak of morals and beliefs. Adults speak of incentives and institutions. It’s not hard to separate argumentative boys from men.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 01:55:00 UTC

  • Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons

    Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 15:44:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755427990461353985

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx @NSKinsella @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755424210307145730

    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/755424210307145730

  • That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized ren

    That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 15:43:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755427849792880640

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx @NSKinsella @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755424210307145730

    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/755424210307145730

  • Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppr

    Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 15:42:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755427501833355264

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx @NSKinsella @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755424210307145730

    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/755424210307145730

  • THE NON-OBVIOUS BENEFITS OF MARKET GOVERNMENT (important topic) William Butchman

    THE NON-OBVIOUS BENEFITS OF MARKET GOVERNMENT

    (important topic)

    William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:

    a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists.

    b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons.

    c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance.

    d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed.

    If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth.

    While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive.

    Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives.

    Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 08:51:00 UTC