Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Capitalism is necessary. That does not mean it is sufficient. And sufficient doe

    Capitalism is necessary. That does not mean it is sufficient. And sufficient does not mean preferable. And preferences are not universal.

    My political argument is that human beings are generous to kin. And that states must be small enough to function as kin even if kinship is merely cultural.

    Redistribution without dicatorship requires multiple competing societies. Because in-group diversity of normative preference is a bad thing for any group. Because it causes people to restrict their domain of kinship trust.

    I am against a redistributive society wherin we are forced into conflict oner norms rather than voluntarily join a society with the norms we prefer.

    And a society i agree with i will sacrifice for. And kinship is the society we evolved to sacrifice for.

    The only value of large states is cultural, economic and military conquest of those who differ both in and out if its boundaries.

    Its Not complicated.

    Small is good.

    Family is good.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-07 11:34:00 UTC

  • How does cancer change you? In many ways, for the good. Although, not everyone a

    How does cancer change you?

    In many ways, for the good. Although, not everyone around you might agree. It takes a while, and we all feel it differently, but something we all share is an increased appreciation for every day. And, frustratingly for others, a little more intolerance for wasting time on things we don’t want to.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 18:16:00 UTC

  • TRUTH AND ETHICS IN ARGUMENT In my quest to cleanse libertarianism of platonism,

    TRUTH AND ETHICS IN ARGUMENT

    In my quest to cleanse libertarianism of platonism, and possibly put at least one nail in the coffin of Postmodern thought, Ive come up with two avenues of argument :

    1) Operational language: Operational language (action) forces us to distinguish between platonic and real. The moment something must be described as actions, it becomes scientific. If it is not described as actions, and observable actions, then it’s not. It’s fantasy. (Platonic)

    2) Ethics: I am pretty sure the requirement to speak in operational language is not a matter of ‘truth’ but of ‘ethics’. In other words, its unethical not to speak in operational language, precisely because it allows us to confuse the platonic and the real. This approach is consistent with the ETHICAL constraint libertarians demonstrate as a preference: the visibility of voluntary and involuntary transfers.

    It is much easier to argue using BOTH of these lines of argument at the same time. Mathematical and logical platonists can have their cake imaginary cake, but they can’t actually eat it. Because if you use mathematical and logical platonism to cross the line into economics and politics, you’re now a crook. Worse, you’re advocating thievery.

    In this case, the first platonic argument that I want to kill off is the constraint that ‘magical numbers’ (infinity) and magical sets ‘infinite sets’, place constraints on theories. (They don’t) Semantic ally meaningful combinations open to sympathetic testing are very low in number. And as I’ve said elsewhere, our problem in the construction of theories is one of words, but cognitive bias, instrumentation and measurement.

    Kenneth Allen Hopf has helped me with this argument, by positioning Popper’s advice as moral, or perhaps more narrowly, ethical. Just as, I would argue, is Nassim Taleb’s improvement on Popper, and Poincaire, and perhaps those of Mandelbrot as well.

    This school of thought is called ‘finitism’ in mathematics. The finitist movement stalled with Russell, Cantor and set theory, at which point it became impossible without using operational language, to prove finitism. So mathematical and set theory today is platonic. Most mathematicians and logisticians are platonists.

    Of course, I’m working on moral and ethical theory, because any political system must rely upon some ethical basis, or it’s not logical to discuss ‘politics’ (persuasion) – it’s just engineering of human beings as if they’re cattle.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 14:07:00 UTC

  • AS MORAL SPECIALIZATION

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/libertarianism_3.htmlLIBERTARIANISM AS MORAL SPECIALIZATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 13:21:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neit

    As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neither argument is provable. We can only prove that finitism has no answer to set theory.

    As far as I know, infinity is not a measurement, and not rational concept – it is a purely platonic concept.

    As far as I know there is nothing that we can knowingly (scientifically) demonstrate is infinite – very large, unmeasurable, inestimable, but not infinite unless we discuss actions.

    As far as I understand, most of the problem with these discussion is metaphysical: confusing the platonic INSTRUMENTS, with physical MEASUREMENTS.

    For purpose of INSTRUMENTATION, (deduction) we (arguably, foolishly) rely on infinitudes of various kinds. But for purpose of measurement, we cannot actually perform any infinite measure because I cannot take an infinite measure, nor can I infinitely repeat a series of measures.

    That mathematical DEDUCTION uses the same symbols as arithmetic measurement is confusing. We must deduce many measurements because direct measurement is impractical. That is largely, the value of both geometry (fixed measurement) and calculus(relative measurement). But there still is a metaphysical difference between measurements (real) and deductions (unreal) despite the fact that mathematical deductions are much more trustworthy than linguistic deductions, because they are less open to variance, because numbers are, more uniquely identifiable, less loaded and more precisely ordered than linguistic statements.

    If infinite sets are not possible except platonically, then we are merely engaging yet again in another conversation about the number of angels that may dance on heads of pins. There is quite an argument going on that Cantor is playing a parlor game, and that between Cantor, Marx, Russell and Freud, is an unconscious conspiracy to replace religious mysticism with logical platonism. (I am one of the people who thinks this.)

    It is necessary for us to make practical use of infinitudes because in practice, in engineering, in physics, distance from any event reduces all effects to a relative constant. Therefore, in practice, while the .99999… does not equal 1 EVER, we can create no measurement that can distinguish between the two. So the platonic concept .9999…. is equal to the measurement 1. Even if the point on any line represented by .9999… never equals 1. EVER, unless we change the meaning of .999999… (Which is really what set theorists do.)

    However, one of the most convenient tricks in any discourse is to confuse the ideal, the platonic, practical, and the real. And unless you know which set of concepts are being used for which purpose its pretty easy to fall into the trap of confusing platonic idealism, with pragmatic platonism, with pragmatic instrumentalism, measurements, and objective reality in real time.

    I suspect my suspicions will be confirmed. And that these silly arguments to logical authority are little more than modern scripture.

    The only platonic test is articulating something in Operational Language open to observation.

    But at least I know why modern scripture is necessary: to preserve moral relativism. (Yes, that’s what I think)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 07:31:00 UTC

  • I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we g

    I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we give people property rights. I think the only logical, and ethical statement is, that you can earn them by exchange of them. And if you don’t want to earn them in exchange, then those of us who have earned our property rights by extending property rights to others – well, we are free to use our violence against any and all of those who do not. If you do not exchange property rights, you have no property rights either. and all rights are reducible to property rights. Including the right to life. If you do not respect property rights then we have no moral constraint upon is for your treatment. (??)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 05:02:00 UTC

  • COUNTERING THE NOBLE SAVAGE MYTH (QUICK LIST OF CITATIONS) (Pinker put a stake i

    COUNTERING THE NOBLE SAVAGE MYTH

    (QUICK LIST OF CITATIONS)

    (Pinker put a stake in that postmodern vampire.)

    ^ Pinker, Steven. “1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory”. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.”

    ^ Chagnon, N.A. (1996). .Bock, G.R & Goode, J.A. (eds.), ed. Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 202–231. ISBN 0471957194.

    ^ Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996): War Before Civilization New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195119126

    ^ Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, eds. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1997

    ^ “The fraud of primitive authenticity”. Asian Times. 4th of July, 2006. Retrieved 16 July 2013.

    ^ Wade, Nicholas (2006). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (4th print. ed.). New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-079-3.

    ^ Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel : a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (5th print. ed.). London: Vintage. pp. 155–292. ISBN 0-09-930278-0.

    ^ Eisner, M. (2003). “Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime”. Crime and Justice 30: 83–142. Retrieved 22 July 2013.

    ^ Lindström, Dag (2009). Body-Gendrot, S. & Spierenburg, P., ed. Violence in Europe. pp. 43–64.

    ^ Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 18:26:00 UTC

  • COME AROUND TO OUR POINT OF VIEW … EVENTUALLY

    http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/zombie-companies-live.htmlTHEY COME AROUND TO OUR POINT OF VIEW … EVENTUALLY

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 05:16:00 UTC

  • ANSWER NEEDED Although our strategy of blocking worked. PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FOR K

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/is-there-any-point-to-economic-analysis/ANOTHER ANSWER NEEDED

    Although our strategy of blocking worked.

    PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FOR KIN.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 15:04:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE NEEDED

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/conservative-white-america-you-need-new.html?m=1A RESPONSE NEEDED

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 15:00:00 UTC