Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE? Has anyone done any work on

    IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE?

    Has anyone done any work on the costs of critical preferences to see if there is an empirical correlation between the costs to pursue a particular choice of one preference over another? I would really like to know, empirically, why we seem to be fairly good at attacking theories. Or whether this is a bias that I can’t seem to see around.

    I suspect that the available field of choices to eliminate at any given time is quite small. And I wonder if we can include or eliminate costs from the logic since we ignore it presently, and all fields other than science do not eliminate it.

    I suspect that there is a causal property of discovery that we do not incorporate in CR/CP. I do not think it has anything to do with induction. But I think there is something that we are missing. I would like to eliminate costs as a variable, since it is the most obvious, because it is included in all other fields of inquiry. It would seem logical that iterating on lowest costs of discovery would produce increasingly parsimonious new theories, while higher cost discoveries would increase the content that must be subject to falsification. This is true in almost every field. I suspect that it is also true in science. And I suspect that while the possibility that we cannot choose between theories is logically true, that empirically it is only true about A vs B, but not true about the sequence of tests starting with A vs starting with B.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 06:41:00 UTC

  • THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS ARGUMENT

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/researchers/francois/RESEARCH/RESEARCH_NOTES/SCIENTIFIC_NOTES/Popper-as-an-exception-to-Bayes.htmlLOVE THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS ARGUMENT

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 06:30:00 UTC

  • A COUP IS CHEAPER THAN SECESSION Our nearest solution, as Thomas Sowell suggeste

    A COUP IS CHEAPER THAN SECESSION

    Our nearest solution, as Thomas Sowell suggested, is probably a military coup. And of course they need a good reason. And you have to give them that reason. The problem with a coup, is that the military, being the military, needs a plan. Because military folks like plans. One of our jobs, is to produce that plan. That plan isn’t actually all that complicated. It has to be something that the military can do in 30 days or less. And not one that tries to solve everything.

    COSTS FROM LEAST TO MOST EXPENSIVE

    1) NULLIFICATION

    2) COUP (RESTORATION)

    3) SECESSION

    4) REVOLUTION

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 05:13:00 UTC

  • Six people in the past 24 hours have told me that russia will invade and conquer

    Six people in the past 24 hours have told me that russia will invade and conquer Ukraine shortly – perhaps as early as tomorrow. Fucking barbarians. I love Ukraine. I have nothing from the american side except a few emails from the state department stating that all americans should leave and particularly leave the east. But you know, it’s a little like our invasion of Iraq. Just took a lot of time to get that equipment there.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 04:24:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS (worth repeating) –“Under rothbardian

    PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    (worth repeating)

    –“Under rothbardian ethics the buyer must beware, and under propertarian ethics the seller must beware. Propertarian ethics put warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and therefore produces the least asymmetry of knowledge. ‘ —

    Propertarian ethics solve the problem of libertarian morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 03:19:00 UTC

  • (ack. allergy season is back. all this tree and grass sex. yuck.)

    (ack. allergy season is back. all this tree and grass sex. yuck.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 01:39:00 UTC

  • (occulus rift)

    http://digg.com/video/russian-guy-freaks-out-while-using-oculus-rift(fun) (occulus rift)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 00:50:00 UTC

  • ONLY FOUR: HEGEL, SPENGLER, WEBER, MCNEIL –“I can think of only four individual

    ONLY FOUR: HEGEL, SPENGLER, WEBER, MCNEIL

    –“I can think of only four individuals, two philosophers of history, one

    sociologist, and one world historian, who have spoken in a wideranging

    way of:

    i) the “infinite drive,” “the irresistible trust” of the Occident,

    ii) the “energetic, imperativistic, and dynamic” soul of the West,

    iii) the “rational restlessness” of the West,

    iv) “the deep-rooted pugnacity and recklessness of Europeans”

    – Hegel, Spengler, Weber, and McNeill respectively.”– Ricardo Duchesne

    Well, I’m in agreement on the last three, and am pretty sure I’ll be forced to agree on Hegel – who gives me a headache. I have a very hard time with conceptual empathy, and he requires it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 17:30:00 UTC

  • WE DON”T NEED THEORISTS TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, JUST BEING RIGHT ABOUT ONE

    WE DON”T NEED THEORISTS TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, JUST BEING RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING IS ENOUGH

    (worth repeating)

    Rothbard’s work on banking is some of the best that’s ever been done. His history of economics is some of the best that’s ever been done. He blows it on ethics (which if you follow me is a pretty simple argument) he blows it on praxeology (which a first year philosophy student probably can demonstrate). Hoppe’s the same. If you ignore Argumentation and Praxeology and focus on his theory of socialism and capitalism, his Ethics of Property, his criticism of the incentives of private vs corporate governance, and his solutions to privatizing regulation via competing insurance companies, it’s some of the best and most revolutionary work that’s been done in the past century.

    Philosophers don’t need to be right about everything, they just need to contribute a single novel idea. Hoppe did more than one. And I think his greatest contribution is probably the means of constructing his arguments – which is why I was drawn to him. He has successfully employed economic reasoning to ethics on a scale never done before, in rigorous form.

    If you want to refute Rothbardian ethics, Argumentation Ethics, and Praxeology, then it’s not all that hard (although it took me a long time myself). The thing is, that if you refute those things, it doesn’t change ANYTHING regarding Rothbard’s history or Hoppe’s institutional solutions. In fact, all it does is eliminate a lot of nonsensical justification that isn’t necessary. It’s just a holdover from before the soviet union fell and chia abandoned central planning for state capitalism, and the world understood that socialism was empirically dead, as well as logically. We have evidence now that previous generations didn’t.

    If you pick something you want refuted it’s pretty easy. Search for criticisms of those three topics. I’m probably the best critic of Rothbard’s ethics, but you’ll find Hoppe’s arguments criticized all over the place. But what you won’t find is his solution to the problem of institutions criticized, or Rothbard’s history criticized. Or of you do, I’ll bet its pretty stupid criticism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 16:47:00 UTC

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.