Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • MISES, HAYEK, ROTHBARD, AND THE AUSTRIAN PROGRAM (from elsewhere) Gabriel Zanott

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/UNDERSTANDING MISES, HAYEK, ROTHBARD, AND THE AUSTRIAN PROGRAM

    (from elsewhere)

    Gabriel Zanotti is correct that (1) the hard core of the Austrian scientific research programme: is the study of dispersed knowledge. But Austrians also retain the remaining thesis of the Austrian program (2) that the business cycle (whether government intervention amplifies and extends booms and busts.) And (3) the Austrian program is perhaps best understood as an effort to develop a legal philosophy of economics rather than rational or empirical. Failure to understand this distinction is probably why the movement failed.

    The following might be life altering for those of you who are deeply engaged in philosophy?

    A) Mises’ program can best be understood as a failed effort to develop Economic Operationalism. He intuited it, but was not skilled enough to solve it, as did Bridgman and Brouwer in science and mathematics. (See my post at: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/ )

    B) Hayek succeeds in grasping that a legal philosophy is what is needed for the formation of a free society such that we produce the optimum economic outcomes – unfortunately he fails (as does Popper, Mises, and Rothbard, and even Hoppe) to solve the underlying cause, which is that property and morality are identical expressions given the structure of the family in relation to the structure of production. Hoppe correctly determines that property is the unit of commensurability and compatibility in all human cooperation (social systems) but his generation lacked the science to demonstrate that all human moral intuitions (instincts and norms) can be expressed as property rights, or to map them to the various family structures. (See my post here: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/the-evolution-of-cooperation/ for condensed list, although I discuss this topic daily.)

    D) Rothbard an best be seen as an attempt to give us a religio-moral code, and an formal-institution-free society, rather than a legal system of formal institutions, and a legal philosophy. Rothbard writes as a cosmopolitan ideologist using the same arguments as marxists, socialists and neo-conservatives: to express Jewish ethics in christian legal terms. And, yes, Rothbard writes simply and accessibly. He excites our moral sentiments. But just as Hayek’s legal framework will produce beneficial ends, Rather than the high trust polity of the northern europeans advocated by Hayek using the formal institution of law, Rothbarian ethics using the informal institution of belief (moral religion) would produce the low trust levantine polity of the middle east. So while few self identified libertarians will like or appreciate it, Rothbard is probably as damaging to the liberty movement as Hayek was beneficial. As far as I know I have put Rothbard to bed permanently. (See: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ )

    Roula Robinson above, is largely correct: only western-into-europeans of the north sea region invented liberty as we know it (universalist liberty), by evolving it. And only the English managed to implement it as a formal system of legal institutions. And only Americans wrote it down in a constitution (Rather poorly it turns out). But that does not mean that once a formal institution is understood (universal individual property rights, rule of law, organic evolution of that law), it cannot be spread and adopted. However, the point I think Emmanuel Todd has demonstrated most convincingly, is that family structure and structure of production, determine moral intutions (as well as our genetics). So diversity turns out to be a ‘bad’, if diversity means a diversity in family structure. (See http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/08/26/how-do-family-structures-vary/ , or any of these: http://www.propertarianism.com/?s=family&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 20:24:00 UTC

  • (Is there any thing WORSE you can do to your Mac than install Java? Say, aside f

    (Is there any thing WORSE you can do to your Mac than install Java? Say, aside from intentionally trying to infect it with viruses, or maybe throwing it out a 20 story window? I HATE java and everything about it. Unproductive, ridiculously verbose, virus magnet.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 08:00:00 UTC

  • Clean. Seating. Service. Food. Selection. In that order.– If you want your cafe

    –Clean. Seating. Service. Food. Selection. In that order.–

    If you want your cafe to look busy, buy cushioned chairs with arms. If you want to reduce time a bit, then buy cushioned chairs without arms. If you want to turn tables buy un-cushioned chairs. If your clientele is shit, then buy used and disposable in cushioned chairs without arms.

    Never ceases to amaze me that restaurant owners and cafe owners forget that it’s not food that they are selling.

    I should do a photo survey of Lviv and I bet that the distribution is really tight.

    Clean. Seating. Service. Food. Selection. In that order.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 07:41:00 UTC

  • LEGAL INSTITUTIONS VERSUS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS A Truth: contracts provide bett

    LEGAL INSTITUTIONS VERSUS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

    A Truth: contracts provide better memory and incentive than do beliefs.

    So if you want a behavior: moms teach children beliefs.

    Adults teach behaviors by institutions and incentives.

    We defend the intent of those institutions by contract.

    The first contract is a constitution enumerating the means of constructing those institutions.

    Prior to that contract property exists as that which we are able to defend.

    Property rights can only be constructed consequent to that contract.

    Anyone who speaks of encouraging belief or value instead of contract and institution merely has failed to mature into a political adult from a mere parent or shaman.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 06:45:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 06:23:00 UTC

  • WHITE LIES AS HONEST, ETHICAL AND MORAL (contrary perspective – truth telling as

    WHITE LIES AS HONEST, ETHICAL AND MORAL

    (contrary perspective – truth telling as potential verbalism)

    I have a really good lie detector, but I also know who is capable of fooling me. The value of lying increases rapidly under certain conditions, and decreases rapidly under others. So, in my life, under these conditions, I just don’t have an opportunity to work under conditions with the class of people who even desire to outright lie. Nor do I put people in a position where they can lie to me, or would want to. So, in my world, people don’t lie. They negotiate, fail to understand, and they err.

    I have no problem at all with white lies and I usually prefer that people tell them whenever possible if it’s ‘good manners’: as means of preserving confidences primarily. Even one’s own confidences. It is a signal that they are trustworthy rather than blabbermouths or social incompetents.

    I usually rely on distractions or incomplete truths in order to preserve confidences while at the same time sharing information that is not in confidence. I think, or at least, my experience is, that this is a sort of necessary, well-understood-language if not protocol among those with power.

    To some degree, great politicians do nothing EXCEPT tell white lies that convey information while preserving confidences. Great negotiators tell half truths for the same reason. The art is in never lying EVER while at the same time preserving confidences. And confidences are necessary for constructing networks of economic dependencies. The reason is that incentives can be manipulated under truth-telling, for unethical, immoral, and un-earned advantage. So in that case, white lies, particularly, distractions and incomplete information that eliminates the ability for others to use unethical, immoral, and un-earned advantage are both ethical and moral. (Wrap your head around that.)

    However, I’ve found that ordinary folk who live in a world of suspicion because they can’t function as good lie detectors, nor can they model incentives of others, get angry with you for this behavior. So it’s somewhat of a problem if you mix class-associations. Because as andy says,we all use only one means of lying.

    So, like violence, it is not the action itself that is moral or immoral, but whether one is violating a property right (including a confidence). Lying is never required because it is for one’s advantage – fraud), but distraction, obscurantism, and truth telling (the amount of information communicated) must be present in some terms, because otherwise you are assisting in a conspiracy to gain advantage where the seller does not want his incentives to be considered as part of the transaction.

    We have to separate negotiation over demand, for negotiation over supply. Incentives are external to the transaction. The question is only whether what is represented in the transaction is true or not.

    For some reason this gets lost in our ethical, moral, and legal theory.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 05:10:00 UTC

  • (personal) Today 1) UI for profile completeness, UI for showing survey results.

    (personal)

    Today

    1) UI for profile completeness, UI for showing survey results. Admin Report for survey results. Meet with Don and plan it out.

    2) 10K foot API for central server functionality (skills, survey data,financial info)

    3) Video of “Ancestral Lands”. Add talking points (takeaways). Render it. Publish it.

    If I’m lucky:

    4) Banking.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:48:00 UTC

  • TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS

    TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:33:00 UTC

  • FOR THE POST-LABOR ERA Thoughts. 1) We use the word ‘abstractions’ and ‘calculat

    http://www.careeroverdrive.com/blog/the-accelerating-assault-to-digitize-automate-mechanize-robotize-you-out-of-a-job-podcast-textHOPE FOR THE POST-LABOR ERA

    Thoughts.

    1) We use the word ‘abstractions’ and ‘calculations’ but a better term is ‘ model ‘. (A subject I’m currently working on). Most people learn by imitation (observation and repetition). And some by imagining actions. Some by abstractions of actions. Some by models of universes. Some by inventing models of universes. And the problem is that the ability to construct models of any type requires a right shift in intelligence distribution of a standard deviation.

    2) I think I have a ‘socio-economic’ solution to this problem, because while it is true that fewer people will engage in the production of market goods and services, the same nearly universal set of people will still be required to engage in the production of the market itself: the voluntary organization of production and consumption. And furthermore, that we can increasingly pay people to produce commons. And it is commons that will bring about the star trek cities and landscape we imagine in the future – not consumption.

    3) I could imagine requiring all physical structures for example, be built from hand-materials – that require labor. I could equally imagine regulating machines out of human-possible jobs.

    4) I could imagine MMT and heavy redistribution, where ‘working’ was a preference for above-standard-redistribution amounts, and therefore status, and luxury goods. Work was a vehicle for status rather than existence. And furthermore that child-bearing decreased your redistributed income.

    5) One thing I often think about is how an oligarchy of producers (like the greeks were) and a vast non-producing proletariat might follow their existing incentives. Meaning, why wouldn’t society return to feudalism of the productive, rather than a feudalism of the people who construct property rights necessary for production (warrior land-holders)? Because those are the incentives that I see.

    These are the models that I work with. So there is a bit of hope here that a socio-political solution will not only be possible but a beneficial adaptation. The fundamental problem is in preserving the incentives to conduct a voluntary organization of production (capitalism). However, under capitalism we falsely assume that the work necessary to create a voluntary organization of production (property rights) by every individual in society is not in itself an act of production that exposes individuals to high costs (it is).

    So individuals engage in production of the commons we call the market, even if they do not engage in production of particulars (goods and services). If you do not advocate for an involuntary structure of production (socialism), and you engage in production of the commons (property rights and therefore the market) and you pay for your shareholdership by doings so, then it is hard to see that it is not a violation of your rights to compensate you for your production of the commons (the market) by producing, respecting and policing property rights.

    This further preserves liberty because it allows for the institutional illegalization of socialism (the involuntary organization of production, in which individuals do not act to produce the commons of the voluntary organization of production.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:26:00 UTC

  • accumulation as explanation of decline in intelligence

    http://feedly.com/k/1EM1DG1Mutation accumulation as explanation of decline in intelligence

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 15:54:00 UTC