Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One

    —“What, if i may ask, is your criticism of Miller? it would be interesting to see if it holds water”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
    (reposted for archival purposes)


    [V]al,

    I don’t disagree with Miller’s multiple “standards of justice”. I just would state it very differently, as necessities, demands, incentives, and evolutionary strategies. I mean, I say the same thing. I just say it very differently.) That said, standard of logical decidability in all matters is provided by one universal moral rule that is necessary – but we can build infinitely complex systems upon it. That one rule provides us with Decidability in law regardless of construction of social norms, and that single, necessary inescapable, universal logical test is very different from the contractual terms by which we construct social orders out of various exchanges, and inside of which we produce multiple standards of justice.

    One thought: (A Criticism)
    —“By mistakenly supposing that thinking intelligently is identical with
    thinking logically, critical thinking textbooks almost invariably regard the purpose of argument to be a combination of justification and persuasion, authoritarian goals that critical rationalists, and other supporters of the open society, must shun. “— David Miller

    (Abstract)
    Well, his criticism is correct, in that our populace is being taught very bad (justificationary ideas). But then, he doesn’t solve the problem. Popper’s argument is much narrower than Miller intuits.

    So, I think that this is not quite right. Instead:
    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)
    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.
    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.
    I believe that is the correct hierarchy. Because it is a NECESSARY hierarchy. Just as these are necessary hierarchies:
    (a) Tautology, Deduction, Induction, Abduction, Guessing, and Free associating.
    (b) Teleological ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and intuitionistic ethics.
    (c) Murder, violence, theft, fraud, omission, indirection, socialization, free riding, privatization, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, conquest, and destruction.
    (d) manners, ethics, morals, laws, constitutions, property.
    (e) life, movement, memory, cost, property, cooperation, norms, property rights laws, government, state, empire.

    So, I while I understand Miller’s assumption, he is making a mistake of ‘one-ness’ or ‘monopoly’ that is a byproduct of some rather structural errors implicit in the use of logic in the discipline of philosophy. Which, if were instead, express not as manipulation of sets (which is how he works if I remember correctly) , but as a sequence of possible actions (existentially possible categories of actions), then he might not make this mistake. I mean, it seems that falsification is a hammer, and everything appears to be a nail. But at some point this is nothing but framing (using concepts one has specialization in, rather than integrating those concepts into the greater whole.

    And in this case, the greater whole, is the universal language of truth telling: science. And until insights obtained through logical analysis can be converted into truthful speech (scientific language) then it remains UNFALSIFIED. <– ***Which is my underlying argument.***

    One of the things economics teaches you is to think about equilibrating processes that negate all our actions into the realm of marginal indifference, rather than seeking binary truth of states.

    So 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)

    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.

    I hope this puts my criticism of Miller in perspective.

    Curt Doolittle

  • My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One

    —“What, if i may ask, is your criticism of Miller? it would be interesting to see if it holds water”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
    (reposted for archival purposes)


    [V]al,

    I don’t disagree with Miller’s multiple “standards of justice”. I just would state it very differently, as necessities, demands, incentives, and evolutionary strategies. I mean, I say the same thing. I just say it very differently.) That said, standard of logical decidability in all matters is provided by one universal moral rule that is necessary – but we can build infinitely complex systems upon it. That one rule provides us with Decidability in law regardless of construction of social norms, and that single, necessary inescapable, universal logical test is very different from the contractual terms by which we construct social orders out of various exchanges, and inside of which we produce multiple standards of justice.

    One thought: (A Criticism)
    —“By mistakenly supposing that thinking intelligently is identical with
    thinking logically, critical thinking textbooks almost invariably regard the purpose of argument to be a combination of justification and persuasion, authoritarian goals that critical rationalists, and other supporters of the open society, must shun. “— David Miller

    (Abstract)
    Well, his criticism is correct, in that our populace is being taught very bad (justificationary ideas). But then, he doesn’t solve the problem. Popper’s argument is much narrower than Miller intuits.

    So, I think that this is not quite right. Instead:
    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)
    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.
    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.
    I believe that is the correct hierarchy. Because it is a NECESSARY hierarchy. Just as these are necessary hierarchies:
    (a) Tautology, Deduction, Induction, Abduction, Guessing, and Free associating.
    (b) Teleological ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and intuitionistic ethics.
    (c) Murder, violence, theft, fraud, omission, indirection, socialization, free riding, privatization, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, conquest, and destruction.
    (d) manners, ethics, morals, laws, constitutions, property.
    (e) life, movement, memory, cost, property, cooperation, norms, property rights laws, government, state, empire.

    So, I while I understand Miller’s assumption, he is making a mistake of ‘one-ness’ or ‘monopoly’ that is a byproduct of some rather structural errors implicit in the use of logic in the discipline of philosophy. Which, if were instead, express not as manipulation of sets (which is how he works if I remember correctly) , but as a sequence of possible actions (existentially possible categories of actions), then he might not make this mistake. I mean, it seems that falsification is a hammer, and everything appears to be a nail. But at some point this is nothing but framing (using concepts one has specialization in, rather than integrating those concepts into the greater whole.

    And in this case, the greater whole, is the universal language of truth telling: science. And until insights obtained through logical analysis can be converted into truthful speech (scientific language) then it remains UNFALSIFIED. <– ***Which is my underlying argument.***

    One of the things economics teaches you is to think about equilibrating processes that negate all our actions into the realm of marginal indifference, rather than seeking binary truth of states.

    So 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)

    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.

    I hope this puts my criticism of Miller in perspective.

    Curt Doolittle

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • The Human Operating System

    [S]omething I wrote yesterday helped me clarify my argument on human anti-equalitarianism.

    – First: with very slight hormonal variation, we are able to reproduce in a distribution (division) of inter-temporal perception, cognition, knowledge and labor. And, that the initial division of perception cognition knowledge and labor began as a reproductive division of labor.

    – Second, that our information system consists of mutually beneficial consent through demonstration of voluntary exchange.

    – Third, that through denying people sustenance by other than market means, we forcibly incorporate them into this information system.

    – Fourth, that western truth telling, common law, property rights, rule of law, and forcible expansion of rule of law, construct the most efficient and therefore rapidly adaptive system by which we expand and enforce the quality of our information system.

    – Fifth, the side effect of this enforcement of market participation is the constant improvement our our genetics in no small party by the allocation of reproduction to the productive.

    – Sixth, that insuring individuals provides incentives that keep them within the information system.

    – Seventh, but reproduction via redistribution cannot be a ‘right’ because it is a forcible cost put upon others. In other words, your right of reproduction and insurance is predicated upon your ability to pay for your offspring. Or in moral terms reproduction without production is ‘a lie’ inserted into our information system.

    This list explains a great deal. Forgive me for using analogies, but it is a fairly short and tight description of the properties of the human operating system.

    With this understanding, Keynesian credit expansion for the purpose of increasing employment is suicidal. And by contrast, the Propertarian “shareholder” system is a natural extension of the human information system. In Propertarianism, I suggest inserting liquidity through the consumer directly, but limiting reproduction for dependents to one child, and limiting immigration to highly skilled individuals, and moving and therefore exporting capital and Propertarian institutions to groups of people, rather than moving people to capital.

    We have spent most of our scientific history (our search for truth) considering problems of mass and velocity. We have spent much of our economic history considering money and credit. But in both cases, we were mistaken – as the physicists and as Hayek have informed us. The model for all human understanding is that of information. Physics must be understood as information, and mass as a generalization of it. The economics of human cooperation must be understood as information, and physical representations a generalization of states of information.

    Hoppe’s criticisms of Hayek are purely psychological, and only half right. Hayek correctly unites physics and economics by combining information and institutions. And yes, Hayek placed his emphasis on the institutions without fully appreciating property. Hoppe places emphasis on property without fully appreciating institutions – particularly norms. Hoppe incorrectly defines property to suit rothbardian separatist ends, rather than as a general and universal rule of human evolution. And very likely, without fully appreciating the distribution of human character traits – he is an odd, somewhat angry and frustrated duck himself – so it is no wonder. Hayek understands man correctly – and is a saint of a man if there was one. But neither man of either character grasped the very great specialization in our perception and cognition – nor that they are both useful and necessary.

    The only end to our evolutionary development is to increase intelligence, decrease impulsivity and aggression, to the point where we still perform our different reproductive functions relying upon our emotional intuitions, but where we are able to rationally observe them for what they are, and enjoy them, rather than be driven by them. Thankfully this requires only increasing our median intelligence by a standard deviation. Unfortunately for other groups, it means they are nearly prohibited from it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Human Operating System

    [S]omething I wrote yesterday helped me clarify my argument on human anti-equalitarianism.

    – First: with very slight hormonal variation, we are able to reproduce in a distribution (division) of inter-temporal perception, cognition, knowledge and labor. And, that the initial division of perception cognition knowledge and labor began as a reproductive division of labor.

    – Second, that our information system consists of mutually beneficial consent through demonstration of voluntary exchange.

    – Third, that through denying people sustenance by other than market means, we forcibly incorporate them into this information system.

    – Fourth, that western truth telling, common law, property rights, rule of law, and forcible expansion of rule of law, construct the most efficient and therefore rapidly adaptive system by which we expand and enforce the quality of our information system.

    – Fifth, the side effect of this enforcement of market participation is the constant improvement our our genetics in no small party by the allocation of reproduction to the productive.

    – Sixth, that insuring individuals provides incentives that keep them within the information system.

    – Seventh, but reproduction via redistribution cannot be a ‘right’ because it is a forcible cost put upon others. In other words, your right of reproduction and insurance is predicated upon your ability to pay for your offspring. Or in moral terms reproduction without production is ‘a lie’ inserted into our information system.

    This list explains a great deal. Forgive me for using analogies, but it is a fairly short and tight description of the properties of the human operating system.

    With this understanding, Keynesian credit expansion for the purpose of increasing employment is suicidal. And by contrast, the Propertarian “shareholder” system is a natural extension of the human information system. In Propertarianism, I suggest inserting liquidity through the consumer directly, but limiting reproduction for dependents to one child, and limiting immigration to highly skilled individuals, and moving and therefore exporting capital and Propertarian institutions to groups of people, rather than moving people to capital.

    We have spent most of our scientific history (our search for truth) considering problems of mass and velocity. We have spent much of our economic history considering money and credit. But in both cases, we were mistaken – as the physicists and as Hayek have informed us. The model for all human understanding is that of information. Physics must be understood as information, and mass as a generalization of it. The economics of human cooperation must be understood as information, and physical representations a generalization of states of information.

    Hoppe’s criticisms of Hayek are purely psychological, and only half right. Hayek correctly unites physics and economics by combining information and institutions. And yes, Hayek placed his emphasis on the institutions without fully appreciating property. Hoppe places emphasis on property without fully appreciating institutions – particularly norms. Hoppe incorrectly defines property to suit rothbardian separatist ends, rather than as a general and universal rule of human evolution. And very likely, without fully appreciating the distribution of human character traits – he is an odd, somewhat angry and frustrated duck himself – so it is no wonder. Hayek understands man correctly – and is a saint of a man if there was one. But neither man of either character grasped the very great specialization in our perception and cognition – nor that they are both useful and necessary.

    The only end to our evolutionary development is to increase intelligence, decrease impulsivity and aggression, to the point where we still perform our different reproductive functions relying upon our emotional intuitions, but where we are able to rationally observe them for what they are, and enjoy them, rather than be driven by them. Thankfully this requires only increasing our median intelligence by a standard deviation. Unfortunately for other groups, it means they are nearly prohibited from it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS
    (from elsewhere)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    [T]he USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.

  • The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS
    (from elsewhere)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    [T]he USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.

  • 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