Author Archive

Q&A: No, I am an Aristocratic Libertarian, not a Bourgeoise Libertarian

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

I do not possess the values of a bourgeoise libertarian, but an aristocratic, martial, advocate of personal liberty. I have been accused of being an aristocratic and intellectual snob for my entire life. It was only by gradually learning to ‘fit in’ after university, and as a necessity of conducting business with common people, and our relocation to rather parochial Seattle, that incrementally forced me to tone it down out of pure utility.

So I don’t hold to the fallacy that consumption is a penultimate good in its own. And while I advocate wealth, cooperation and decidability, it’s because I view cooperation as a means of constructing the voluntary organization of experiment, innovation, production, distribution and trade that produces wealth and technology with which a minority of warriors and generals can hold the hordes – often wealthy hordes – at bay.

This is the ancient info European (Yamnaya) social economic and military evolutionary strategy. To use advanced technology and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers: to pacify and transform the world.

So I see all competitively advantageous products of man as weaponry to be used against competitors. My cognitive process like my heritage is martial. Until I learned economics – the language of equilibria, I used martial terminology – the language of competition.

We need kings, generals, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and warriors. But, I do not need the same intuitions as an individual warrior or captain. I need the intuitions of a general and King.

Wars are won by logistics.

That is why.

What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

Thursday, November 12th, 2015


I have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves.

The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit.

Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.

This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us.

Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways.

Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems.

Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects.

As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

I work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”.

Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements.

Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood.

And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent.

So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death.

But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm.

But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well.

So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me.

This is the most and best moral position any man can take.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

The General Challenge of Improving Demonstrated Intelligence Is In Making Fewer Errors.

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

—“General knowledge, scientific knowledge, and testimonial truth will pretty much reduce any error you might accumulate through normal human cognitive bias. And, from what I can see, the general challenge of improving demonstrated intelligence is not getting smarter, it is making fewer errors.

I know engineers who are not particularly smart, but they demonstrate the intelligence that they do have very well, because engineering-thinking is pretty scientific and practical. I see this in doctors as well as engineers. Whether they’re exceptional or not matters less. Their entire profession is built upon the scientific principle of doing no harm. So they may fewer errors.

Too bad economists and politicians don’t do the same.”—

Improve Us Rather than Criticize Others

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

Well, you know, I consider myself a serious philosopher who engages in tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and humor, ideological inflammation, and macho nonsense now and then for entertainment purposes – and often to signal that I do not live in an ivory tower.

But I definitely don’t do conspiracy theory, and I try to avoid ridicule, since they are evidences of intellectual weakness that I don’t want to demonstrate.

Basically I want to know how we get better, not how others fail.

Use of the Word ‘Natural’ in Economics

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

(re: Tyler Cowen/ Scott Sumner / Econlib ) (important idea )

—“Economic activity consists of interactions between people, and it’s not ever independent of human influence, and so it’s never “natural”.—

One can however, increase the truth content of human relations, or one can decrease the truth content of human relations. One can increase the truth content of human relations in times of shock. One can decrease the truth content of human relations in order to accelerate consumption.
So human relationships are in a natural state any time we improve institutions that improve information by reducing informational asymmetry, or distributing information that was previously unavailable (prices, interests rates, money supply, etc).

Human relations are in an unnatural state when we insert disinformation in order to fool people into acting other than they would in the natural state. For this reason it is perhaps more accurate to distinguish not between natural and artificial, but truth and deception, morality and immorality.

The most accurate model of the social sciences, like the physical sciences is information.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Bankers Rarely Know They’re Work is Immoral

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

(worth repeating)

Well to be honest, they don’t even know that themselves. I think a better test is the evidence of the volume of insider trading in the stock market, and the manipulation of the market by large houses in order to bait and trap retail investors on momentum plays. Other immoralities are anti-consumer nonsense like penalties for cell phone usage, entrapment into contracts one cannot afford, baiting people into mortgages they can’t manage, the multitude of investment and insurance schemes, and the entirety of the democratic political process which is a race-to-corruption.
Most if not all but a few bankers are too ignorant (and from too low in their class rankings) to have any idea what they are really doing.
I don’t think most politicians know that they are corrupt.

Why I Am Not Good at Arithmetic, Multiplication, Division, and Chess.

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

I have a lot of friends who are good at chess, and I do think chess is a pretty good determinant of intelligence, and perhaps a better determinant of academic and career success.

I was in a chess club through seventh or eighth grade, and really never got that good until the first machines came out because they played perfectly – too perfectly.

But as an illustration, There are three reasons I am not very good at it:

(a) Puzzles vs Problems ethic: I have a problem with puzzles as wasted effort, when I should be working on problems. Just as I have a problem going from books to problems, rather than from problems to books. So in effect I see playing games that require more than casual attention (cards), as an immoral waste of my time. (Which a certain girlfriend in college beat into me through insults as well.) So I cant make myself spend times on such things without feeling like I’m letting the time run out on my lifespan.

(b) Working (short term) memory – one of the reasons I became interested in IQ is the understanding of both the myopia of my autistic thinking and what I began to understand was a problem for me in arithmetic calculation despite my abilities in mathematical reasoning. I work on certain categories of problems partly because I seemed to have a fairly weak working memory compared to other students. I have trouble adding and multiplying, or working with a lot of states: like origami requires. I have no problem reasoning. I can detect truth content pre-cognitively, and I can define spectra – lines of causality. I cannot however juggle many independent and as I see it – unrelated – states of things.

(c) Limited lateral thinking. (which I suppose I could overcome with practice) but not only do I have trouble with humor – which depends upon it, with cunning in a game of chess (i tend to play aggressively with every move and am too concerned with optimum moves and can be baited by them), but I tend not to find ‘shortcuts’ so much as ‘truths’.

Basically ‘if its in motion in time’ I intuit it. If it exists in states I don’t. Everything consists of flights of arrows.
This tells me a lot really, because again, I see the world as a division of cognitive labor, with all these variations in smart people producing different ‘sensors’ that detect different ‘bits’ of reality, and our voluntary cooperation and trade as the information system by which we different sensors share that information.

Man is a gloriously fascinating creature.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Yes We Can – Purge All Lies From This Earth

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

—We can purge all forms of lies from this earth. And in doing so, transform man into gods. For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit?—

(worth repeating)


Thursday, November 12th, 2015


I usually position this question within intellectual history as the sequence:

(a) anthropomorphism / narrative oral tradition / hunter gathering / Shamans vs Warriors / Tribalism

(b) theism / writing / agrarianism / Temple and Church Bureaucracy vs Warriors / Tribal Unificationism

(c) moralism (rationalism) and modernism / printing / capitalism / State/Temple-Merchant-State shared power / State Formation.

(d) postmodern propaganda, pseudoscience and innumeracy / mass media, democratic secular socialist humanism / industrialism / State-Academy-Media against Warrior and Merchant Class and absent Temple class / (new world order formation???)

(e) scientific / digital zero-distribution-cost / (worldwide search yet unfound???) / information era / (power structure still emerging but swinging toward authoritarian capitalism) / (new order formation – looks like return to higher tribalism? Nationalism?)

I agree that ‘religion’ is with us to stay, but religion requires shared belief in a falsehood, for purposes of cooperating and organizing – usually as a resistance movement against human discretion and hubris.

We know that religious experience (spirituality) is caused by the pack-response (submission to the pack). We know that religions and cults must be costly for members, to survive their initial members.

We know that religions are advantageous for members in establishing limits of rule, moral norms, and metaphysical value judgements. For example, the TED movement is considered by many to be a postmodern church, and each lecture no different from a Sermon from the Pulpit, where technology and will provide the promise of salvation.

We know that postmodernism is a religious revolt against the meritocratic unpleasantness of science. We know that evangelical christianity is a revolt against the secular state. (and it works).

But where does this lead us? I have been working on this problem for a while now and I am struggling with it.