Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • RATIONALISM – INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ANALOGY – IS AN EXEPTIONAL MEANS OF DECEIT.

    RATIONALISM – INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ANALOGY – IS AN EXEPTIONAL MEANS OF DECEIT. HERE IS WHY.

    (from elsewhere)

    The use of invocation by analogy, allows us to conflate the perspectives of imagination, experience, action, and observation, such that we cause substitution of relations, and the pretense of existence, because we require substitution, to compensate for the conflation – which as a consequence allows us to use suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading.

    The reason science (truth-telling) has defeated rationalism(story-telling), is the requirement for operational definitions, and therefore the mandate for perspective that is free of imagination, analogy, loading, framing, overloading; and as such, free of suggestion.

    Now, our cognitive biases, and our moral biases perform suggestion for us. So it is not necessarily that we intend to deceive by analogy, substitution, loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. We often have little choice. Our genetic and learned intuitions drive us to justify our strategies.

    So even when we practice critical reasoning we are engaging in justification – because critical reasoning is an advantage for us. It just so happens that for some of us truth is an advantage, and for many others it is a disadvantage. Individual and group strategies often depend upon useful falsehoods.

    The minimum reducible statement is something on the order of “Operations are names, not analogies, and as such the informational content of names is complete.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:22:00 UTC

  • LIE BY ANALOGY One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to

    LIE BY ANALOGY

    One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to lie using operational language. That is why science requires operational definitions. Whenever someone makes a statement about ‘law’ and rule of law, it is helpful to ascertain whether the person is engaged in deceit, by questioning whether he is talking about law, contractual provision, command, or permission.

    Humans evolved cooperation from non-cooperation because it was an unequalled multiplier in the production of calories, and concentration of calories in expensive offspring. But as soon as one develops cooperation one invites free riding (parasitism). The prevention of free riding is necessary for the preservation of cooperation – otherwise cooperation is irrational and counter-productive. Without the prevention of free riding, and without aggressive punishment of free riders – from the lazy family member to the aggressive alpha, to the predatory competitor – people cease to cooperate, and must cease to cooperate. And productivity declines accordingly. And trust declines accordingly. And economic velocity declines accordingly. And violence theft, fraud, free riding, and rent seeking and corruption and conspiracy – including political conspiracy at scale, and bureaucratic conspiracy of common malincentives expand to the point of equilibrium.

    We either possess rule of law: constraint, without exception, or discretion, or conversely, independence from discretion in matters of involuntary transfer – or we do not.

    Rule of law is not a mater of opinion. It is either true or not true.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:20:00 UTC

  • “A perfect order that actually existing people will not support is less perfect

    “A perfect order that actually existing people will not support is less perfect than a less perfect order they will support.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:15:00 UTC

  • (Ok. I wrote some philosophy today. It feels good. Very good. Sigh.)

    (Ok. I wrote some philosophy today. It feels good. Very good. Sigh.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:13:00 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

  • GHANA AS A INSTRUCTION ON THE VIRTUES OF UNIVERSAL LOVE I have learned more that

    GHANA AS A INSTRUCTION ON THE VIRTUES OF UNIVERSAL LOVE

    I have learned more that is more important to my understanding of the virtues of christianity by listening in on the debate among the Ghanians than I have from any other formal research. If I compare that to the debate in Islamic, Russian and Sinic societies, it is light years of difference. The debate is hindu society is interesting, and I see them beginning to catch up in small clusters. And I expect it to spread virulently in the educated classes. But there is a great difference between the vast size and power of the hindu empire, and the challenges facing Ghanians and Ukrainians who have vast evils on their borders, and institutionalized corruption that they must struggle against.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:48:00 UTC

  • IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CO

    IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

    (important sketch)(capitalism)(efficient uses of capital)

    There are many more empirically efficient allocations of capital at any given moment. But there are not necessarily more efficient allocations of incentives. Since the voluntary organization of production requires an efficient allocation of incentives, then the maximum efficiency of any allocation of capital, is one in which we produce the widest distribution of incentives. The reason being that the construction of the voluntary organization of production that we call capitalism is not (as libertarians fantasize) natural behavior or rational choice, whatsoever. People must be provided with incentives to voluntarily organize production.

    This means that the entire cosmopolitan fantasy promoted by Rothbard on one side, and Soros on the other, and other advocates of immorality like Walter Block, is a justification. The most efficient use of capital is that in which the population is incentivized to construct and preserve the foundation of the economy: the voluntary organization of production.

    And so we seek a Pareto optimum between incentives to produce the voluntary order, and the efficiency of capital allocation in production within that voluntary order. And any increase in capital efficiency that produces a decrease in incentives is actually destructive.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to demonstrate that if people cannot join the market for production, that we must compensate them for the work of constructing the voluntary organization of production that makes the high productivity, high trust, high velocity and low friction under the voluntary organization of production possible.

    From this perspective, most rothbardian thought, like most cosmopolitan thought, is merely an elaborate obscurant art of fraud for the purpose of declaring without cost, that which is hugely expensive: high trust, high velocity, and the voluntary organization of production.

    If you understand this you will abandon libertinism (cosmopolitan libertarianism) and revert to aristocratic libertarianism (classical liberalism). Because we had it right. We did. But the American Neo-Puritans put a dent in it, women put a hole in it, and Jews and Catholics made a fissure out of it.

    Thankfully it isn’t impossible to fix: truth telling is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:38:00 UTC

  • EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS (worth repeating) Before I ha

    EXPERIENCE WITH INTENTIONAL IMMORALITY IN BUSINESS

    (worth repeating)

    Before I had my personal moral reformation, and rejection of what I learned in university, I considered going into the private espionage business. (Such business does exist, and is totally above board when it is used to uncover illegal activity. You can hire security firms that have specialized groups that perform the work legally.)

    After working with the Koenigs, the Golubs and the Seminoffs (all descendants of Russian jews) and filing racketeering charges against the Koenigs, turning the Golobs in to the justice department for wire fraud, and turning Seminoff in for Tax Evasion and Fraud, it seemed like I was making a career out of stumbling into illegal financial activity, and I might as well take the moral high ground.

    Instead, I did the opposite, which was to search for only moral people to work with, and avoid the scumbags entirely. It was a good personal decision. But the awareness of how damned evil some people were never left me. And I always felt that my moral business partners were naive idiots that I had to make sure didn’t hurt themselves or me. (I failed by the way.)

    I used to tell these stories to everyone. I don’t anymore. I prefer to focus on the positives. But there is a whole world of shitty people out there using every financial and legal scam in the book to hook crook and steal from others. And you would be surprised that that list includes some of the most prestigious legal firms in america with whom I have sat on boards, and listened to explicit instructions on how to get away with theft.

    My ancestors were puritans and I suspect that it’s a genetic bias. But I have come to detest the institutionalization of immorality imposed on my people during the 20th century.

    And so I am fighting back at grand scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION Either laws completely and totally limit

    RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION

    Either laws completely and totally limit our executives in all circumstances other than defensive warfare, or there is no rule of law. Administrative ‘law’ is an impossibility. We can issue administrative commands, and by deceit, claim that they hold the same properties as law. We can issue regulatory commands, and by deceit claim that they hold the same properties as law. But they always have been convenient deceits – to grant to arbitrary human wish that which is necessary law of cooperation.

    Law is discovered, and recorded by neutral jurists, no less scientifically than physical laws, biological processes, and mechanical operations: as we invent new means of involuntary transfer – from the most simplistic and obvious violence theft and fraud, to the most indirect and obscure socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking and free riding – we register this new means of involuntary transfer (just as we register patents) as new prohibitions on involuntary transfer: law.

    We can choose to construct contracts for the production of commons, using government, and we can resolve those contracts in courts, using laws. But beyond the voluntary production of commons, all else is usurpation and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 01:45:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://t.co/8tv9Z0GtKuObvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 17:47:00 UTC