Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSI

    THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSITIONS

    There are categories of problems you cannot solve within the academy. The academy is hostile to many of them. Just as the church was hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. Just as the state is hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. In the case of the church and the state, they have adopted the mantra of entrepreneurial class without grasping its limits: we must serve customers, however we may not produce externalities. Both academy and state, which possess international rather than regional scope seek the best customers, whereas church as local franchises sought the best deals on behalf of their investors (consumers).

    This contradiction of incentives was caused by the enlightenment fallacy of the island people (the British – my people) and is why they divorced from the german civilization.

    It was a very profitable means of suicide.

    We cannot look at the anglo value system as ‘good’, we can only look at the anglo empirical methods in philosophy, science, commerce, and law as good. The german method is false,but the values are ‘good’. The cosmopolitan values and method are bad and false.

    CULTURE………..STRATEGY……………..METHOD……..

    British………………False(Suicidal)…………True (ratio-empirical)

    German……………True(Optimum)…………False (rationalism)

    Jewish……………..False(Cancerous)……..False (pseudoscientific)

    The problem is that the germans, once conquered, adopted enough of the British strategy, and the jewish strategy, while they have been occupied in the postwar anglo era, that they are acting suicidally as well.

    The only way to fix this problem is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 05:06:00 UTC

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW. Given that there is only one law – the

    IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW.

    Given that there is only one law – the prevention of free riding; and one means of suppressing it – the law. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation to escape the limitations of competitors – market competition. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation in the means of escaping the limits of that law. And as such, preservation of that market, by that law, requires that we match innovation in the law, so that the difference between market innovation to escape competition, free riding to take advantage of new opportunities for free riding, and the legal means of suppressing free riding, preserve confidence in taking risks, and preserve the velocity of the market, and preserve the accumulation of wealth. Then the question remains why we would need competing legal systems any more than we would need competing systems of mathematics. If we separate judiciary from government, meaning that we separate the resolution of disputes and innovation in the law, from the production of commons via a contract, then we may need different governments for the different allocations of control over our individual property rights, in order to produce the commons that are desirable by our individual group members, but I can understand no conditions under which we require competing systems of law, other than to allow different ranges of morality in the creative application of free riding. We may require organic and distributed evolution of the law, much like we use in science today – moving from hypothesis on a law, to theory on a law, to ‘law’ proper by the accumulation of judicial consent. But if these laws diverge, then something is wrong. The reason being that all legal disputes are decidable, and if they are not then they are not matters of property open to decision making.

    As far as I know this is a box and the theory of a market for law is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 02:07:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 01:07:00 UTC

  • Curt: Address issue of right to self Government

    Curt: Address issue of right to self Government.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:15:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes

    UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes or what it costs. Set a precedent that ‘if you betray your people we will kill you.” Never surrender, never forgive, never forget, and defeat your enemies completely.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:00:00 UTC

  • Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ri

    Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ridicule will get you hurt, but at least it is not dishonest. Competence without ridicule will not get your hurt, and is honest, and allows you to resort to violence if the other party attempts to disengage via dishonesty, incompetence, or ridicule.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 11:36:00 UTC