Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • A More Equal World : Thank The Anglos For Capitalism And For Dragging Humanity Out Of Ignorance And Poverty.

    Regarding: China poised to pass US as world’s leading economic power – FT.com

    –“When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report found the new methodology as well as faster growth in poor countries have “greatly reduced” the gap between rich and poor, “suggesting that the world has become more equal”. The world’s rich countries still account for 50 per cent of global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world’s population.”–

    [O]f course, no man is felt a hero to his debtors. The only measure of equality is consumption – the rest is investment and taxes. If we look at consumption per capita, rich western countries are far more equal than their ‘egalitarian’ counterparts. Because all that extra ‘wealth’ is merely the means of influencing the voluntary organization of production. It is ‘pressure’ not consumption. It’s not ‘real’ money that can be consumed. But getting human beings to understand that it is not consumable without likewise losing the ability to voluntarily organize production, is just beyond their comprehension. Rich countries are rich because they voluntarily organize very complex, highly rewarding production with little corruption at low risk. One may not think of the US military as an organizer of production. But both the UK Navy and the US postwar military are the defacto-organizers of world production. The question remains, that if the west ceases organizing voluntary production by meritocratic means, then what form of involuntary production by unmeritocratic means will prevail. History is not terribly comforting in this regard.

  • A More Equal World : Thank The Anglos For Capitalism And For Dragging Humanity Out Of Ignorance And Poverty.

    Regarding: China poised to pass US as world’s leading economic power – FT.com

    –“When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report found the new methodology as well as faster growth in poor countries have “greatly reduced” the gap between rich and poor, “suggesting that the world has become more equal”. The world’s rich countries still account for 50 per cent of global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world’s population.”–

    [O]f course, no man is felt a hero to his debtors. The only measure of equality is consumption – the rest is investment and taxes. If we look at consumption per capita, rich western countries are far more equal than their ‘egalitarian’ counterparts. Because all that extra ‘wealth’ is merely the means of influencing the voluntary organization of production. It is ‘pressure’ not consumption. It’s not ‘real’ money that can be consumed. But getting human beings to understand that it is not consumable without likewise losing the ability to voluntarily organize production, is just beyond their comprehension. Rich countries are rich because they voluntarily organize very complex, highly rewarding production with little corruption at low risk. One may not think of the US military as an organizer of production. But both the UK Navy and the US postwar military are the defacto-organizers of world production. The question remains, that if the west ceases organizing voluntary production by meritocratic means, then what form of involuntary production by unmeritocratic means will prevail. History is not terribly comforting in this regard.

  • We Can Now Objectively And Scientifically Judge Good Philosophers And Bad Philosophers

    (suggestions wanted) [I]f we acknowledge that democracy is a failure, and all philosophers who attempted to justify democracy failures, and all philosophers who attempted to expand democracy into socialism and postmodernism failures, we are left with instrumentalists (empiricists) and reactionaries of various fields. Philosophy as a discipline, must face the uncomfortable fact, that (a) the metaphysical program failed and was solved by cognitive science, and (b) the democratic program failed and was solved by economists (c) therefore the political program failed, and was solved by heterodox philosophers (d) the ethical problem failed and was solved by economists and heterodox philosophers. The reason for this is obvious: the incentives in Academia to attempt to replace the church’s mysticism with some sort of collectivist democratic rationalism, had it’s predictable influence. Philosophers can produce good neutral and bad influences. Unfortunately, the greater body of philosophers that have been influential since the american revolution, have been more destructive than beneficial. We can never forgive Marx and Freud, any more than we can forgive Kant and Rousseau. “Thou Shalt Not Harm” not only applies to doctors, but to philosophers, and to all of us. I give great weight to computer science because unlike the logic of language and unlike abstract and mathematical logic, computer science does not drop the property of operationalism in real time from its reasoning. As such it has higher correspondence with actionable reality than mathematics, and farm more so than formal logic. And if we seek to make informal logic of any value we must learn from computer science and return the property of operationalism to philosophical discourse. Because without it, it certainly appears to consist almost entirely of nonsense built upon linguistic deception. == 99. Aristotle 99. Niccolo Machiavelli 99. Adam Smith 99. Max Weber 99. Emile Durkheim 99. David Hume 99. John Locke 99. G.W.F. Hegel 99. Friedrich Nietzsche (lesser candidates) 99. Robert Michels 99. Steven Pinker 99. Jonathan Haidt == 99. Rene Descartes 99. Alan Turing 99. Karl Popper 99. Gottlob Frege 99. W.V.O. Quine 99. Saul Kripke THE BAD PHILOSOPHERS 99. Immanuel Kant 99. Ludwig Wittgenstein 99. Karl Marx 99. Soren Kierkegaard 99. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 20. John Rawls 99. Martin Heidegger 99. Jacques Derrida 99. Michelle Foucault 99. Jean-François Lyotard 99. Jean Baudrillard 99. Murray Rothbard THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL’S BAD PHILOSOPHERS Max Horkheimer Theodor W. Adorno Herbert Marcuse Friedrich Pollock Erich Fromm Otto Kirchheimer Leo Löwenthal Franz Leopold Neumann Siegfried Kracauer Alfred Sohn-Rethel Walter Benjamin Jürgen Habermas Claus Offe Axel Honneth Oskar Negt Alfred Schmidt Albrecht Wellmer

  • We Can Now Objectively And Scientifically Judge Good Philosophers And Bad Philosophers

    (suggestions wanted) [I]f we acknowledge that democracy is a failure, and all philosophers who attempted to justify democracy failures, and all philosophers who attempted to expand democracy into socialism and postmodernism failures, we are left with instrumentalists (empiricists) and reactionaries of various fields. Philosophy as a discipline, must face the uncomfortable fact, that (a) the metaphysical program failed and was solved by cognitive science, and (b) the democratic program failed and was solved by economists (c) therefore the political program failed, and was solved by heterodox philosophers (d) the ethical problem failed and was solved by economists and heterodox philosophers. The reason for this is obvious: the incentives in Academia to attempt to replace the church’s mysticism with some sort of collectivist democratic rationalism, had it’s predictable influence. Philosophers can produce good neutral and bad influences. Unfortunately, the greater body of philosophers that have been influential since the american revolution, have been more destructive than beneficial. We can never forgive Marx and Freud, any more than we can forgive Kant and Rousseau. “Thou Shalt Not Harm” not only applies to doctors, but to philosophers, and to all of us. I give great weight to computer science because unlike the logic of language and unlike abstract and mathematical logic, computer science does not drop the property of operationalism in real time from its reasoning. As such it has higher correspondence with actionable reality than mathematics, and farm more so than formal logic. And if we seek to make informal logic of any value we must learn from computer science and return the property of operationalism to philosophical discourse. Because without it, it certainly appears to consist almost entirely of nonsense built upon linguistic deception. == 99. Aristotle 99. Niccolo Machiavelli 99. Adam Smith 99. Max Weber 99. Emile Durkheim 99. David Hume 99. John Locke 99. G.W.F. Hegel 99. Friedrich Nietzsche (lesser candidates) 99. Robert Michels 99. Steven Pinker 99. Jonathan Haidt == 99. Rene Descartes 99. Alan Turing 99. Karl Popper 99. Gottlob Frege 99. W.V.O. Quine 99. Saul Kripke THE BAD PHILOSOPHERS 99. Immanuel Kant 99. Ludwig Wittgenstein 99. Karl Marx 99. Soren Kierkegaard 99. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 20. John Rawls 99. Martin Heidegger 99. Jacques Derrida 99. Michelle Foucault 99. Jean-François Lyotard 99. Jean Baudrillard 99. Murray Rothbard THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL’S BAD PHILOSOPHERS Max Horkheimer Theodor W. Adorno Herbert Marcuse Friedrich Pollock Erich Fromm Otto Kirchheimer Leo Löwenthal Franz Leopold Neumann Siegfried Kracauer Alfred Sohn-Rethel Walter Benjamin Jürgen Habermas Claus Offe Axel Honneth Oskar Negt Alfred Schmidt Albrecht Wellmer

  • Boiling The Revolutionary Frog

    [C]ontrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize that the water is boiling. Apparently, like the frog, humans eventually realize that their tax, regulatory, and legal policy are killing them. But only when its too late. Our civilization is about to boil. And I’m going to add salt to the water. http://english.caixin.com/2014-04-22/100669023.html

  • Boiling The Revolutionary Frog

    [C]ontrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize that the water is boiling. Apparently, like the frog, humans eventually realize that their tax, regulatory, and legal policy are killing them. But only when its too late. Our civilization is about to boil. And I’m going to add salt to the water. http://english.caixin.com/2014-04-22/100669023.html

  • The Measure of A Philosopher: Beneficially Novel, Good, Bad(wrong), And Dangerous

    (Discussion on Bleeding Heart Libertarians: The Measure of an Economist or a Philosopher) All, [A] good economists provides us with insights into the state of affairs we live in. A novel economists provides us with new general rules (a theory). A good philosopher explains or re-explains the changes in the world to us in current language. A novel philosopher provides us with a new general rule (a theory). It is not better to be good or novel. It is most important that one not be dangerous. Freud, Marx and Cantor reintroduced mysticism in the form of obscurantism. Russell compounded that new mysticism. The postmoderns have been terribly damaging to institutions, morality and language. Rothbard did more damage than good. Most of his history is quite good. His ethics were a catastrophe and set us back by decades. A disaster I have been struggling to correct. So one can be novel, one can be good, one can be wrong and one can be destructive. I don’t care much about the first three. The fourth quadrant is what I worry about most. Because bad and dangerous philosophy turns out to spread far faster than good and beneficially novel philosophy. Just like bad news spreads faster than good. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • The Measure of A Philosopher: Beneficially Novel, Good, Bad(wrong), And Dangerous

    (Discussion on Bleeding Heart Libertarians: The Measure of an Economist or a Philosopher) All, [A] good economists provides us with insights into the state of affairs we live in. A novel economists provides us with new general rules (a theory). A good philosopher explains or re-explains the changes in the world to us in current language. A novel philosopher provides us with a new general rule (a theory). It is not better to be good or novel. It is most important that one not be dangerous. Freud, Marx and Cantor reintroduced mysticism in the form of obscurantism. Russell compounded that new mysticism. The postmoderns have been terribly damaging to institutions, morality and language. Rothbard did more damage than good. Most of his history is quite good. His ethics were a catastrophe and set us back by decades. A disaster I have been struggling to correct. So one can be novel, one can be good, one can be wrong and one can be destructive. I don’t care much about the first three. The fourth quadrant is what I worry about most. Because bad and dangerous philosophy turns out to spread far faster than good and beneficially novel philosophy. Just like bad news spreads faster than good. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • Good diagnosis does not indicate good cure. Charles Hugh Smith, who I follow clo

    Good diagnosis does not indicate good cure.

    Charles Hugh Smith, who I follow closely gives great analysis of the demographics of politics.

    But he needs to read about russian kitchens, how fences make good neighbors, and the english development of the civil society – through private not shared resources.

    Our problem us the failure to constrain the breeding if the underclasses. That us the only problem facing man, because it is the cause if all problems facing man.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 06:37:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-cost-of-crimes-in-us.html?m=1

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 06:09:00 UTC