Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • ROBERT HIGGS MISSES THE POINT I don’t like internecine battles. I criticize them

    ROBERT HIGGS MISSES THE POINT

    I don’t like internecine battles. I criticize them all the time. However, the reasons that we are criticized are very often justifiable, because we have too many rothbardians spewing dogma the consequences of which they do not understand. Yet, those who have higher moral standards **DO** understand. Especially conservatives who also want liberty, but who understand, better than libertarians, the threshold of morality necessary for us to rationally grant any liberty to one another at all.

    Rothbard did great work on history but his philosophy was a catastrophe. It doomed our movement from the start.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 02:42:00 UTC

  • SIMPLE GENERAL RULES : PHYSICAL SCIENCE VERSUS COOPERATIVE SCIENCE The physical

    SIMPLE GENERAL RULES : PHYSICAL SCIENCE VERSUS COOPERATIVE SCIENCE

    The physical universe consists of very simple general rules that produce very complex results.

    The moral universe, likewise consists of very simple rules that produce very complex results.

    By speaking in the language of construction – in operational language – we can teach people those very general rules.

    Just as we have simplified the physical world through the use of the operational language of the physical sciences, we can simplify the political world through the use of the operational language of cooperation.

    The language of American Conservatism is lost in layers of allegorical loading and framing. They know how to USE terms but they do not understand the construction of those terms.

    If we give conservatives knowledge of ethical and moral construction, they will then be able to argue their aristocratic egalitarian ethics in rational language.

    Ethics it turns out, is a very simple subject. With very simple general rules.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:34:00 UTC

  • “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”

    “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:19:00 UTC

  • WELL, I DID IT. I CREATED “SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL REALISM” Didn’t mean to. Just

    WELL, I DID IT. I CREATED “SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL REALISM”

    Didn’t mean to. Just was a byproduct of trying to solve the problem of ethical rules for a post-democratic society.

    Universal ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:17:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the

    ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO

    Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal.

    Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others.

    Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty.

    There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics.

    Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:15:00 UTC

  • IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS. It is

    IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS.

    It is irrational and very likely an evolutionary impossibility for an organism to tolerate extraction or parasitism from it’s own kind except in matters of limited kin selection.

    The evolution of cooperation requires that we deny others the ability to free ride on our efforts, cheat against us, or steal from us, while still insuring each other against periods of incapacity to produce.

    So why would any group tolerate rothbardian ethics EXCEPT as a means of predation and parasitism on neighbors?

    They wouldn’t.

    Rothbardian ethics are irrational. Aggression either must include prohibition on cheating, non-predatory exchange, and all other forms of extractive parasitism, or else aggression is an insufficient test of rational property rights. The only tolerable means of cooperation is PRODUCTIVE, FULLY INFORMED, WARRANTIED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.

    Everything else is just an excuse for suppressing the strong’s violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to lie cheat and steal.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 12:23:00 UTC

  • KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION VS KNOWLEDGE OF USE Joel Mokyr did a wonderful job in

    KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION VS KNOWLEDGE OF USE

    Joel Mokyr did a wonderful job in Gifts of Athena, but he has the strange jewish predilection for conflating verbalisms with existence. He refers to “Knowledge of how” and “knowledge of what”. These are verbal categories only. They aren’t causal categories.

    I use the terms “Knowledge of Construction” and “Knowledge of Use” (how). While “Use” and “How” share similar properties, “Construction and What” are sufficiently different in properties to mean considerably different things.

    “Construction” requires action in time. I have no idea what “What” should mean other than an empty verbal category. It’s a purely self-centered, experiential statement.

    I am fairly sure that if someone says they understand something, it means a knowledge of construction. Whether they can use it or not is only a small portion of the possible domain.

    Construction, Use, Intended Consequence, Unintended Consequence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 11:16:00 UTC

  • LAST PIECE OF THE PROPERTARIAN PUZZLE Rescuing libertarianism from parasitic Rot

    LAST PIECE OF THE PROPERTARIAN PUZZLE

    Rescuing libertarianism from parasitic Rothbardian ethics, providing an institutional solution to post democratic socialist monopoly bureaucracy, giving conservatives a rational language with which to argue for aristocratic egalitarianism.

    DONE.

    Damn…. That was the last piece of the Propertarian puzzle.

    Took me, what, almost three years?

    Prohibition on Obscurantism, Pooling and Laundering: requirements for Operational language and Calculability.

    I can put this together as an implementable plan that conservatives will readily use to destroy both the government bureaucracy and the financial sector.

    Time to put a fork in it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 10:34:00 UTC

  • Been trying to find a solution to a particular problem of political economy, and

    Been trying to find a solution to a particular problem of political economy, and that is, that I’m not convinced it is even possible to honestly resell a loan. In fact, I’m pretty sure that everyone involved in the issuance of any loan should be responsible for it.

    Now, digital coinage solves that problem by allowing us to cheaply issue shares on any particular loan, and to sell the shares against that loan without laundering causality or transferring responsibility for the loan and its default. This restores the lender’s liquidity without transferring ownership of something that I do not think can be ‘priced’ honestly except by the issuer and his honest assessment of the risk.

    This is a very interesting political theory. And it’s a fascinating business problem. The insurer then, simply functions as a title registry for data, and that registry could even be public as are BTC.

    Since it’s not POSSIBLE to honestly issue a loan any other way, then this gets out of the problem of loan bubbles, and even makes it nearly impossible to profit from state inflation of individual markets…. hmmmmm…… also stops too big to fail….

    I knew I would figure it out if I stuck with it…..

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 09:30:00 UTC

  • THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST The spe

    THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST

    The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.)

    Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market.

    At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking.

    But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor.

    Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course.

    Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury.

    I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian.

    SPECIFIC TERMS:

    By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion).

    By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government.

    By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties.

    By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc.

    By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 08:08:00 UTC