Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • The Future Of Economics And Cooperative Science

    (interesting) [I] doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior. I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do. But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION. That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”. [B]ecause all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest. As such, the science of cooperation, including:

    • David’s right. Tipping point was in the past 30 days. It’s happening. Putin was

      David’s right. Tipping point was in the past 30 days. It’s happening. Putin was the catalyst for the death blow to the postwar model.

      Need to look at the cycles again now. Revisit demographics again. Not sure I have time for that kind of deep think.

      When I said the correction would continue through 2014, and possibly through 2020, part of that statement was hopefulness. The human ‘forgetting curve’ is about four to six years. People have to ‘give up’ on prior habits and develop affinities for new ones, for a reformation of values to take root.

      Now, technically speaking that cycle is about eight or nine years. (Flocking and schooling in a business cycle.) So, we should have one year left and see something serious in about 2015.

      That’s coinciding with the departure of the (civilization-destroying) boomers (first generation of empowered proletarians).

      That wave is coinciding with the collapse of anglo debt capacity.

      And that wave is coinciding with the collapse of the postwar model (european american fantasy).

      Demographics get pretty critical between 2020 and 2025.

      Now, politically and intellectually you can start to see the change happening over the past year.

      And technology is making an institutional solution to political conflict a possibility (just as all major innovations are technical innovations that assist in cooperation under greater complexity.)

      Perfect storm.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-03 12:46:00 UTC

    • (diary) My life is insane, really. It’s this kind of “Curt in Wonderland” experi

      (diary)

      My life is insane, really. It’s this kind of “Curt in Wonderland” experience that I can’t really take any more seriously than Alice took the Hatter.

      First, you know, Roman plays white rabbit and brings me here. I meet V the first or second day. Stumble into Kirill, who turns out to be one in a million. Go through the revolution, the invasion, and everything else, and… it’s just got this *unreal* sort of feeling to it.

      I mean, I can sit in a restaurant or coffee shop in the states and write for days and, sure in the Seattle area someone is bound to say hi. I know to many people not to run into people to chat with. (And, most people know that Seattle is a pretty anti-social culture).

      But even as a rather world weary business traveller I’ve been pretty much all over. And even though I’m hyper-friendly (like most aspies) and really I don’t get much chit chat unless I work at it. (And most americans are so self-absorbed that they aren’t worth chatting with, honestly.)

      But I mean, wtf. I can’t sit in a coffee shop in Kiev, or go out to dinner without some woman starting some conversation with me. And you can start a conversation with most men here if they have any english at all.

      It’s just…. weird to have women in their twenties to forties just aggressively pursue you. I mean, I have this self image of a nerd. I’m pretty good looking and I dress well, but I”m a nerd – unquestionably. I read an write all day.

      It’s just like… I’ve been down the rabbit hole for a year and a half and I wonder when the blue pill is going to wear off….

      Thanks for letting me share. You know, I just had to because otherwise I’d have to start sticking myself with pins to make sure I’m not in the matrix or something…..

      Life is awesome. I don’t recommend multiple seriously illnesses, but they sure as hell make you appreciate the world for what it is.

      I love Ukrainians. Every crazy beautiful, gentle, lovable one of them.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-03 11:13:00 UTC

    • I’M CRITICIZING ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS, NOT HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS CRITICISM IS LIMIT

      I’M CRITICIZING ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS, NOT HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS

      CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC.

      I criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism.

      My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition).

      THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS.

      And the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist.

      Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means.

      Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons.

      HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY

      But that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state.

      The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se.

      LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY.

      I’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system.

      So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values.

      If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.

      Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.

      That would be immoral.

      Curt Doolittle

      The Propertarian Institute

      Kiev

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-03 10:33:00 UTC

    • LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION” (cross posted from elsewhere) Libertarians do not advoc

      LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION”

      (cross posted from elsewhere)

      Libertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate:

      a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law.

      b) requirement that companies be insured.

      c) elimination of liability protections for executives.

      The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors.

      It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology.

      But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 23:30:00 UTC

    • WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS LESS SENSITIVE TO THE TRANSACTION COSTS OF IMMORAL AND UNET

      WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS LESS SENSITIVE TO THE TRANSACTION COSTS OF IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL ACTIONS?

      (the most important bit of philosophy that you will read today)

      As intelligence increases morality increases, and concern about morality decreases. The reasons are still being debated, but the general theory is that (a) smarter people can identify dishonesty more easily, and (b) smarter people can rely upon wit and cunning as a competitive advantage so that they have less trouble competing honestly. To which I would like to add (c) that the higher you are in the food chain the more abstract property you are dealing with and therefore the harder it is to steal it.

      Libertarians tend to be very bright. But libertarians also test as abnormally insensitive to moral questions. The connection between the two facts is pretty obvious. We libertarians are less concerned with immorality because it’s easy for us to defend against. I don’t take the position that we’re less moral. Only that immorality is less of a challenge for us SO WE DISCOUNT THE TRANSACTION COSTS of immoral activity, whereas everyone else does NOT discount those transaction costs.

      This explains why libertarians are more easily fooled by Rothbardian ethics than conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) and progressives (socialists). The moral economy is less valuable to us than to conservatives and progressives. We discount the cost of immoral and unethical behavior.

      But if we want to build a polity – the fact is: we’re wrong. Those transaction costs increase as intelligence and general knowledge decrease. And so it’s just not rational for a body of people to adopt Rothbardian ethics. They aren’t moral ENOUGH for suppression of immoral and unethical behavior, and the high transaction costs imposed upon people who must deal with pervasive immoral and unethical behavior.

      Private property is what remains when a polity suppresses all free riding: violence, theft, fraud, cheating, externalizing, privatizing, conspiracy, corruption and extortion. And people will not grant one another private property rights and reduce demand for the state unless suppression of free riding (immoral and unethical behavior) is present FIRST.

      Curt Doolittle

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 15:33:00 UTC

    • ASPIE-TARIANS, STUPID-TARIANS, IMMORAL-TARIANS, LIBERTINES AND LIBERTARIANS

      ASPIE-TARIANS, STUPID-TARIANS, IMMORAL-TARIANS, LIBERTINES AND LIBERTARIANS

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 13:27:00 UTC

    • ( Dear god. Thank you for helping me get through this winter, which was one of t

      ( Dear god. Thank you for helping me get through this winter, which was one of the worst experiences of my life. It’s bad enough that my own government became a life threatening enemy, and tried to ruin me out of bureaucratic laziness and incompetence. It’s worse that in our civilization being a white protestant male is a crime, wealth is to be punished. And worst of all, that as a father you are essentially of the same legal status as a felon. Follow that up with revolution and threat of invasion while trying to launch a new company. And it was just not a good time to be alive. So thank you for getting me through it. )

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 08:43:00 UTC

    • Thank you for being you, Alex. 🙂

      Thank you for being you, Alex. 🙂

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 06:38:00 UTC

    • RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES DEFINITION ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer

      RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES

      DEFINITION

      ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange

      MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange.

      CASES

      AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence)

      UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical)

      ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical)

      IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral).

      MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).

      Source date (UTC): 2014-04-01 14:41:00 UTC