Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • Q&A: REVOLUTION. RESULTING IN THE ‘RIGHT’ PEOPLE? (worth repeating) QUESTION: —

    Q&A: REVOLUTION. RESULTING IN THE ‘RIGHT’ PEOPLE?

    (worth repeating)

    QUESTION:

    —“How do we demand a return to an Aristocracy of the right people? This is a steep hill we’re climbing.”—

    ANSWER:

    The right people are impossible to know. And even such, it’s not a matter of choosing the right people. It’s a matter of preventing all the WRONG people. And preventing the wrong people is something that we can do.

    Prosecute the bad, and only the good remain. Determine the false, and only true remains.

    Fragility is easy to exploit into a cascade.

    It was one thing to promise democracy when there was no empirical evidence. But the evidence is in. It’s genocidal. Mostly because women lacked the experience and accountability for the votes that they cast. We got what the majority of women and the minority of men desired: largely by destroying the family and expanding immigration, and transferring reproduction from the middle to the lower classes through aggressive taxation.

    The problem for creating momentum in any revolution is that people need an alternative institutional framework to accept, if not advocate, that will solve present problems and provide them with a means of understanding how the future might unfold. So, we need something for them to demand. Just as the founding fathers did. Just as all enlightenment movements did. And it must take a moral high ground.

    After that, there are 3 hours of energy, 3 days of water, 6 days of food in the channel, and an economy that cannot tolerate shocks.

    Long gone are the days where the multitudes must take to the streets with pitchforks.

    A small number of men with a few pages of instructions can do far more damage than the communist insurgents did. A sustained but short period of unpredictability and a positive set of demands will collapse the channels, and the government with it.

    All governance is an illusion created by the accumulated momentum of common interests. It is a fragile illusion easily dispelled, which is why governors are so paranoid about the slightest threat.

    It’s easy, with just a few thousand. With 1% it’s all but certain. We have more than 1% if we give them actionable direction.

    (Look at the middle east.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-02 04:53:00 UTC

  • THE CONDUCT OF A CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTION 1) Develop solution to demand, and a pl

    THE CONDUCT OF A CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTION

    1) Develop solution to demand, and a plan for orderly transition.

    2) Raise the cost of the status quo until the status quo is intolerable.

    ….a) inform the population of demands, and warn them to inventory goods.

    ….b) begin civil disobedience (raise costs of maintaining order)

    ….c) threats (create fear in state, academy, and media.)

    ….d) fire (cheap, effective friend)

    ….e) infrastructure disruption (power largely)

    ….f) selective kidnapping and assassination

    ….g) tactical entrapment (make locals unable to govern)

    ….h) draw in the military and hold them in many locations.

    3) Allow transition to occur by any of the possible means:

    ….a) enactment of changes (modify government)

    ….b) nullification (incrementally replace government)

    ….c) secession (create new governments)

    ….d) coup-d’-etat (military take over the government)

    ….e) insurrection and revolution (replace the government)

    ….f) civil war (replace the government after costly warfare)

    Each of these solutions is more costly than the previous. But thankfully, contemporary economies and governments are very fragile when subject to economic and infrastructure disruption. So lower cost solutions are likely.

    It is easier to replace a government today than at any time in history. And it takes a smaller number of people to cause disruption than at any time in history.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-02 00:38:00 UTC

  • Reforming Hoppe: A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors

    (from elsewhere) [I] consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s aprioristic justificationary rationalism in ratio-scientific terms. Hoppe’s errors are natural for a German philosopher who was trained by Marxists. And while the errors are substantial by today’s standards, they are limited to errors in construction (justification), with his conclusions from his justifications surviving. This is important. From Hoppe’s earliest work onward, his deductions from incentives are correct. – We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules, and we criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translate to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all known attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.”  Hoppe confuses legal justification (excuse making), with truth (survival from all competition). As Mises discovered but failed to understand, truth propositions including human choice require the possibility of constructing a sequence of rational choices  AND the survival from categorical, logical, empirical falsification. Truth propositions survive competition. – Possession demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and property exist after an agreement to cooperate.  Scarcity exists prior to cooperation. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of possession nor the origination of property. – Different sets of Property rights evolve in communities due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation at the given level of division of ability, knowledge and labor – and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation. We pay for cooperation by forgoing opportunities to use or consume that which others have already invested in using and consuming. Man like other animals retaliates against the imposition of costs upon that which he has himself born costs with the intent to inventory. The universal demonstration of altruistic punishment (disproportionately costly punishment of free riders, parasites, predators) demonstrates the evolutionary necessity and value of cooperation as the most costly and scarce good. (thus upending libertarianism’s attempt to suggest cooperation can be obtained for free, or that it is the natural bias of man or animal. instead, man and animal are rational. we cooperate when possible, parasite when possible and prey when possible, depending upon costs.) – Argumentationand non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that factm no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired.  Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary.  We live in an amoral world of  violence, theft, conspiracy and deception,  and while we  can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. – The minimum scope of property necessary to construct a reciprocal exchange, in order to provide minimum incentives for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is property-en-toto, or what we call “demonstrated-property” (demonstrated defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), and the minimum scope of property is not IVP: intersubjectively verifiable property – (property that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.)  Arguably Hoppe suggests that IVP is merely a minimum criteria and that all other properties must be arbitrarily constructed upon it.  However, this means that IVP is an insufficient criteria for a basis for law.  Whereas Property in Toto (demonstrated property) is a sufficient criteria for the basis for law. In other words, physical property is insufficient for the formation of a polity, it is merely sufficient for cooperation between states (organized polities). – The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property in toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deception and cheating.  A rational anarchic polity can only form under property en toto, not IVP. – Those arguably voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, because larger states have used squatters and settlers and given away territorial rights  in borderlands in order to hold it from competitors cheaply, without having to invest heavily, but still giving them an excuse to conduct war if attempts taken against it. If those have evolved for other reasons, they  have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end. – The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism (a militia) and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide). – Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) as a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperative and economic phenomenon, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.) I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights have been in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights. All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them. I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE. Rothbardian libertarianism is just the extremism of the Marxist prohibition on Private Property inverted into an the extremism of a Marxist prohibition on Common Property – despite the fact that property rights can only exist as a commons, and no polity can survive competition for people and trade, and against competitors without providing commons as the multipliers necessary to do so. I hope this is of some value to you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • THE END OF PSUDOSCIENTIFIC AND RATIONALIZED LIBERTY I’m still wondering how much

    THE END OF PSUDOSCIENTIFIC AND RATIONALIZED LIBERTY

    I’m still wondering how much life the Cosmopolitan Libertines, and Separatist libertarians, and Pseudoscientific Libertarians (Misesians) have as a movement. Especially given the increasing relevance of the aristocratic libertarians, and the rapidly accumulating scientific evidence that the conservative (aristocratic) vision of man is correct, and the libertine and the progressive are lies, cognitive biases, or errors.

    A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS

    (copied here from comments, in reply to Samuel)

    Well, I consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s in ratio-scientific terms instead of his use of aprioristic justificationary rationalism.

    Hoppe’s problems (errors) are natural for a german philosopher who was trained by Marxists. But they are considerable errors in construction.

    – We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules. We criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translates to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.”

    – Property demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and so does scarcity. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of property. Scarcity is an abstract explanation not a cause.

    – Property rights exist due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation, and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation.

    – Argumentation and contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not necessary constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and

    – The minimum scope of property reciprocally necessary to defend for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is demonstrated property (defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), not intersubjectively verifiable property (that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.)

    – The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property en toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deceptoin and cheating.

    – Those voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

    – The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

    – Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperation, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

    I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights are in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

    All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

    I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

    I hope this is of some value to you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-30 09:40:00 UTC

  • Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

    (important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)

    [Y]our Charter.  The demands of your revolution :

    1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)

    2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.

    3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)

    4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.

    5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.

    [W]e succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.

    The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.

    But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.

    Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).

    This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.

    [T]he monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.

    So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.

    There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.

    Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.

    The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.

  • Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

    (important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)

    [Y]our Charter.  The demands of your revolution :

    1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)

    2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.

    3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)

    4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.

    5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.

    [W]e succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.

    The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.

    But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.

    Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).

    This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.

    [T]he monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.

    So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.

    There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.

    Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.

    The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.

  • ON THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT RAMZPAUL’S POINTS 1) The Counter-Enlightenment was tak

    https://gloria.tv/media/7TcJehsj2GJRAMZPAUL ON THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    RAMZPAUL’S POINTS

    1) The Counter-Enlightenment was taken already. But this is a counter-enlightenment movement. The Dark Enlightenment. (I disagree with conflating the dark ages and the middle ages. Western civic society is largely the result of the late middle ages, not dark ages.)

    2) The Cathedral includes the Academy, The Media, The State, The Deep State.

    3) The Religion of the Cathedral is Cultural Marxism : Having failed scientifically (Scientific Socialism), Having failed organizationally (Syndicalism), Having failed through Postmodernism (lying) AND having started with demand for access to opportunity, expanded their demands to equality of opportunity, and having expanded their demands to equality of outcome, and failing because of the empirical difference in ability between individuals, the only solution was to import vast numbers of underclass people from the third world, encourage single motherhood, destroy the family, and create dependence upon the state sufficient that the state could take control of all functions in life.

    3) Red Pill : Accepting the truth of the evidence of man’s behavior and abandoning the enlightenment fallacies.

    4) Inequality and Diversity: People are empirically unequal, and Diversity empirically decreases trust and increases demand for tyranny. (The reason we are unequal is largely the difference in rates of reproduction of our classes. While homo-sapiens of the various races are similar, we vary in the success at suppressing our underclass reproduction. Those who succeed have advanced societies, and those who failed have impoverished societies. The cold solved this problem for us. The underclasses are a problem. Everywhere and always.)

    5) Democracy: Democracy is the worst possible system because it is dependent upon lies not reality or scientific reality, and surrenders control to the lower classes and elites who pander to them.

    CURT DOOLITTLE’S EXPLANATIONS

    The purpose of the enlightenment

    0) To end the Aristocratic Rule of the Landed Monarchies, and the Landed Church.

    1) To justify the middle class takeover of government (means of producing commons) from the landed aristocracy.

    2) To justify the diminution of religion and religious mysticism in favor of science and reason, assisting in the middle class takeover of the government.

    The Fallacy of the Enlightenment

    1) That it was possible to create an aristocracy of everyone. It’s not possible because meritocracy is not in the interest of the underclasses. Parasitism is.

    The Institutional Error

    1) Instead of creating a new house for the middle class, and then a new house for proletarians, which would have made it possible for classes to conduct exchanges, we created a single house with majority rule and as a consequence, found that the lower classes, and women in particular had no interest in the aristocracy everyone, and instead, voted to incrementally destroy the aristocratic civilization we call ‘the west’.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-25 13:51:00 UTC

  • How Can I Reform Critical Rationalists?

    (important question) [I]s it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.
    1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (theoretical darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards? 2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies? 3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery. I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not. Thanks Curt

  • How Can I Reform Critical Rationalists?

    (important question) [I]s it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.
    1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (theoretical darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards? 2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies? 3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery. I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not. Thanks Curt

  • Reflections on our Progress

    (reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy) [L]ook at the past two years of posts by Eli Harman and Michael Philip, and look at the change in their sentence structure, length, and chain of causal relations. I’m very conscious of these things. So I see it. Johannes is a bit of a character, but at least offline, he is loosely stringing very long chains of causal explanation together and is perhaps best at constructing analysis by a chain of unloaded incentives. Look at the change in the confidence of argument of Haille Mariam-Lemar. Roman usually conducts his arguments elsewhere but he is the best at enfranchising the other side. Look at what we’ve seen from Jesse Bjorn and Mike Enoch in understanding and applying testimonial truth and propertarianism. It’s beautiful. But what is most beautiful, is the confidence that’s emerging. One of the things I wanted to do was increase the aggressiveness of the debate so that we spoke with confidence and conviction. I wanted to create a moral high ground that we weren’t afraid to argue without guilt, and with conviction. Truth is that moral high ground. And if we create a moral high ground to demand, we can stop complaining about the status quo, and work toward institutional change. We can demand institutional change. Revolt for institutional change. While it’s a phenomenal amount of work, I can see a future where we can train people to speak truthfully the same way we trained people to speak scientifically-morally instead of ratio-morally, and instead of religio-morally. Where we conduct exchanges rather than impose majority rule. Where we treat tribes like younger and older families rather than people to defeat or resist. But I’m still failing in some of my ambitions. I want to change the debate from criticism of multiculturalism and racism to advocacy of familialism and aristocracy. From genetic differences to differences in distributions. From equality and inequality to aristocratic success and failure. From corporate nation-states to private tribal families. From ratio-moral argument to scientific-truthful argument. Wherein each of us helping parent our tribes into a positive future for mankind. Each of us working to suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit and outright lying. Each of us building not just the truthful society, but a truthful mankind. And with that we future we create the aristocracy of everybody we intuit that is possible, dream that is possible, but can only be achieved by diligent pursuit. We discovered truth. We discovered testimony. We discovered the jury and the common law and rule of law. We discovered high trust. And with them we discovered science, medicine and technology and with it and them, built the civil commons as a competitive evolutionary strategy, and by consequence the civic society and the economic velocity that comes with it. But while it may take a particular people at a particular time in a particular place to invent a technology – it is also truth that all people at later times and in various places, can adopt that technology and gain the benefits of it. But truth and trust are hard and expensive. They are however, the most important capital for the production of innovation and prosperity for all. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. July 19, 2015