Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE (north sea libertarian liberty) The only

    THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    The only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:

    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.

    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.

    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.

    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.

    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.

    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.

    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    Fukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    As advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.

    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.

    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.

    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).

    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.

    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.

    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law.

    …7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    www.propertarianism.com

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 06:31:00 UTC

  • DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER. I’d like to posit a broader gene

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/04/things-i-probably-will-have-time-to-say-rethinking-macro-policy-iii-conference-washington-dc-april-15-16.htmlA DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER.

    I’d like to posit a broader generalization that not only keeps up with current events but looks past them.

    Political behavior since the beginning of this correction – particularly the expression of moral intuition as austerity – is evidence that all human organizations, at all scales, act to advance their interests, and those interests remain heterogeneous and irreconcilable. The optimum economic performance in any political order is determined by the homogeneity of their interests – not the maximum velocity under the assumption of common interests. As such, we must construct any science of economics – the study of cooperation that is predictive, within those constraints – or it is ideology: meaning persuasive, not science: meaning descriptive.

    I believe we could argue that – as we did in 1913 – we have reached the maximum tolerable homogeneity in both the country, and the world. And with that maximum tolerable homogeneity, the limit of the generalization of the principles of the 1930’s. And the limit of the origins of those principles in the generalization of the Anglo, German and Jewish enlightenment visions of man, in which each group attempted to advance its group strategy as a universal good. All theories fail at some scale, but we never know in advance, that limit. All those theories persist today unmodified and irreconcilable. And to their visions of the future we have now added the economic, political, demographic and military force of other civilizations once again. We call this effect ‘globalization’. Which is in itself the implication of homogenous universal interest among those who cooperate.

    Yet, man cooperates because it is a more beneficial means of competition, not a de-facto good. But in the end, within and without, intra and inter, we compete. Cooperation is only as sustainable as it is beneficial. Its benefit has limits, and those limits are political.

    Without the abandonment of the myth of a monopoly of interests, and the introduction of polycentric morality, and political reality, into economics, we will remain unable to forecast, or even describe events.

    But that said, Braid is right: without reforming the financial system we will not stop the unnecessary privatization of the commons endemic to the distribution of liquidity through an unnecessary distributor.

    So I think the necessary reformation of our thought is the one in which we bypass the financial system, instead of one in which we attempt to improve it. I think the discourse then becomes one of fiscal policy and not one of monetary policy. I think we then avoid the monopoly of interests assumed in monetary policy, and conduct exchanges between the interests of heterogeneous classes, rather than manipulate those classes in an attempt to conquer the middle and upper by the lower. And that world is likely the only one that can marginally improve on the universalist model of the 20th century, which is an institutional expression of the anglo enlightenment, and our friends Smith and Burke.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 23:06:00 UTC

  • Against The Boomer-Academy’s Sale of Indulgences – A Charter for The New Reformation

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Myths About Attending College Debunked
    [C]hristopher, This self-serving post is disingenuous at best. As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12. The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports). The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead? That is the reform that is required. As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring. This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization. Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages. We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform. We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth. Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • “Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”–Vlad

    “Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”–Vladimir Lenin

    Yeah. Well, I’m there Vova.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:12:00 UTC

  • THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION (good ar

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/myths-about-attending-college-debunked.html#AGAINST THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Christopher,

    This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.

    As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.

    The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).

    The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?

    That is the reform that is required.

    As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.

    This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.

    Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.

    We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.

    We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.

    Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 07:08:00 UTC

  • ADVICE: REFORMING POLICE INCENTIVES (1) Rescind the Federal courts-created “doct

    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2014/10/15/incentives-matter-ferguson-police-abuse-swat-teams-roving-gangs-forfeiture-powers/#sthash.Qx7toLcY.dpufTOM’S ADVICE: REFORMING POLICE INCENTIVES

    (1) Rescind the Federal courts-created “doctrine” of “qualified immunity” under Federal law for cops;

    (2) Cops must, keep and pay for their own private liability insurance (NO municipal/county/state insurance or other citizen-backed “deep pocket”);

    (3) The pension pool of the relevant police department were required to contribute 10-20% of all judgments/settlements related to police abuse claims.

    – See more at: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2014/10/15/incentives-matter-ferguson-police-abuse-swat-teams-roving-gangs-forfeiture-powers/#sthash.Qx7toLcY.dpuf

    CURT’S ADVICE

    1) Eliminate Forfeiture

    2) Eliminate Entrapment (stings)

    3) Require Truthful Speech

    4) Require body cameras.

    FOR GOOD MEASURE

    5) Eliminate single-officer patrols.

    6) Require military body fat limits.

    AND POSSIBLY

    4) Separate judgement on arrests from investigation and restraint.

    “Truth Telling Is Enough”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 04:30:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM I think the debate in classic

    THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

    I think the debate in classical liberalism is unfortunately (as Hayek tried to inform us) too much on the structure of government (the market for the production of commons), and too little on the rule of law (the evolution of means of suppression of parasitism) and distracted by the artificial (false) demarcation in property rights, and totally absent of the debate on the problem of suppressing immorality (the total suppression of involuntary transfer, and the forcible removal of all alternatives to market participation).

    Humans are want to reduce debates to single issues. Unfortunately, most issues are determined by equilibria not states. In the case of politics, the rule of law as the means of suppressing immorality and forcing people into productive activity is one topic. And the construction of commons that cannot be produced by the incentives of the market is something else.

    As far as I know the solution to the rule of law is known. Two problems remain: (a) the problem with the production of commons – primarily because of the problem of free riding among tax payers; and because of the problem of bureaucratic incentives among administrators. And (b) because of the problem of the declining presence of means of participating in the market (employment) – a problem which we anticipate increasing.

    The problem (b) is solvable by shareholdership and dividends, and loss of shareholdership in the event that one violates the shareholder agreement.

    The problem (a) is solvable by eliminating monopoly decision making under majority rule, and instead, providing the individual commitment of funds. In other words, independent of whether we rely on (i)elected representatives, (ii)representatives chosen by lot (juries), or (iii)direct participation, if the total revenues were divided by the number of participants in i,ii,or iii, then we voted our dollars, we could pursue policies (commons) that interested us, and not pursue commons that did not. And competition would provide answers that reason cannot. There is no need for majority rule.

    However, that is a prescription for the production of material commons, not of normative commons. And it is necessary to redistribute (de-centralize) the production of normative commons (rules of public behavior). Again, competition will drive adoption. And there is no value in normative tyranny.

    This model allows us to federate insurance (universal insurance), cooperate in the production of material and economic commons, and to choose to compete in the production of normative commons.

    As such the classical liberal method expanded such that the government remains a market for the production of cooperation on commons and mutual insurance, rather than a means of the projection of monopoly.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:08:00 UTC

  • THE NEW CURRICULUM? (worth repeating) I would argue that we should be taught the

    THE NEW CURRICULUM?

    (worth repeating)

    I would argue that we should be taught the following:

    1) Manners, ethics, and Morality under the Golden Rule, Silver Rule, and the one-rule of property and voluntary exchange. The miracle of cooperation. How we insure one another in a multitude of ways.

    2) Truthfulness, Witness and Testimony (Operationalism and Existential Possibility) as well as how to spot errors in truthfulness, witness, and testimony.

    3) Logic, Grammar, Rhetoric, Debate and Oratory (as we once were), including how to spot ignorance, error, bias, deception, and Loading-Framing-Overloading (“Suggestion that overwhelms reason”).

    4) External Correspondence (empirical observation, analysis and testing) with a nod to Instrumentalism. And how to falsify external correspondence. What a pseudoscience is, and how to spot it.

    5) How to use free association (what we call ‘creativity’) “Filling the shelves of your mind, and then ‘playing’. Which is a discipline if you work at it. (It’s my preferred discipline.)

    6) Arithmetic, Accounting, Finance, Economics (in that order)

    7) Mathematics, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, and at least the ‘idea’ of calculus. But taught as the history of the development of these problems that people were solving, instead of as wrote. With far more emphasis on word problems.

    8) Mind. Biology. Chemistry, Physics, (in that order)

    9) The western heroic canon.

    10) As much history – as the narrative of problems people solved – as we can tolerate.

    And honestly, I think all philosophy is discardable except as an interesting inquiry into the intellectual history of the struggle to develop science: Truth telling.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 05:01:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: OVERTHROW PSYCHOLOGIZING AND SOCIOLOGY – THE TWO MEANS OF LEFTI

    PROPERTARIANISM: OVERTHROW PSYCHOLOGIZING AND SOCIOLOGY – THE TWO MEANS OF LEFTIST EXPANSION

    A friend reminded me the other day that with Propertarianism we can replace the use of psychology, psychologizing, and sociology in historical analysis, and most likely as disciplines.

    Because propertarianism provides us with the causal properties of human wants and fears.

    We are simple creatures.

    And Psychology, Philosophy and Sociology were the primary means by which the left took over the academy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 02:29:00 UTC

  • POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (good read)(from elsewhere) Hiroshi: We are ope

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.htmlPROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

    (good read)(from elsewhere)

    Hiroshi: We are opening Pandora’s Box.

    Curt: Or are we achieving our potential?

    Hiroshi: Yes, but potential for good or evil?

    Curt: Good and evil are technical terms in my universe. And this technology, like violence, is neutral.

    The question is whether the ends produce risk to the genome. But since at all times when we suppress the reproduction of the underclasses, or when upper classes migrate to new areas, mankind evolves rapidly; and because morality increases and impulsivity decreases and time preference lengthens with intelligence, our only choice between Brazil on one end and Star Trek on the other in a populated planet is this one.( Superior intelligence does not breed superior ambition or aggression. )

    As far as I know aggression defeats intelligence and Huntington missed that observation.

    Hegel was wrong as well – heroism and by consequence, sovereignty, jury and truth telling are the cause of western rates of development.

    Hiroshi: In my universe, good and evil are not technical terms. Imagine a universe in which no human beings exist. In that universe there is neither good nor evil: everything is technical and neutral. Good and evil can exist only when human beings exist. Good and evil become important terms when human beings decides their mode of being or make “judgment” in the sense of Hannah Arendt. (See my short essay above on Arendt’s conception of judging)

    7 hrs · Like

    Curt: Sorry, I meant ‘technical’ in the sense of objective. And objective in the sense of independent of introspection. I also use the term ‘decidable’, appropriated from mathematics, to avoid the loading on the term ‘judgement’. The difference being that introspection and therefore subjectivity is present in judgement, and not present in decidability. So good and evil are decidable propositions.

    In this sequence: One can be lax. One an err. One can privatize. One can engage in predation. One can engage in destruction without benefit to the self. One can engage in destruction that produces a chain of destructive externalities. The last is my definition of ‘evil’ and immoral.

    If on the other hand, one warrants defense against externalities (takes all possible known precautions), in order to create a chain of beneficial externalities – then this is ‘good’ and moral.

    The concepts of good and evil, judgement, justice, and morality, have been inherited from our ancient past and remain loaded with introspective demands, because of our failure to articulate the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation. But the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation are no longer unknown but trivial.

    What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness, Russian-Jewish Postmodernism, Chinese Delay-Deceit, Hindu Avoidance, and Muslim Denial and rebellion. Each is a strategy for group persistence.

    In the context of this question, the positive externalities of improving the genome, and creating supermen – or at least, highly intelligent, attractive (symmetrical) and with a moral bias, is hard to argue with.

    This technology exists already. We do it by assortative mating. We call it ‘castes’ or ‘classes’. A race to the top (selective breeding) has always produced better ends than a race to the bottom (through excess reproduction of the lower classes).

    So my question is instead the non-intuitive: we are now engaged in an experiment called ‘redistribution’ which increases the rates of the lower classes, and suppresses the rates of the middle classes, and has isolated our upper classes. This experiment has evolved (through advocacy of democracy under the ‘enlightenmemt’) into a dysgenic disaster that one can easily call ‘evil’, and it’s promotors ‘evil’ as well, by the very technical criterion I proposed above. Society has become ordered to value a negative by use of a ‘judgement’ that democracy is a good, when the consequences are an evil.

    So why is it not beneficial to reorder society around a judgement that improves man, rather than devolves him?

    I would much rather have a public debate, and a ‘judgement’ about how to handle the improvement of man, than the current debate about how to degenerate him.

    So in this sense, suppressing this technology is to persist an evil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( Eli Harman: add this to the weapons cache)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 03:03:00 UTC