Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Oct 05, 2012Fifth of October, arrive from Munich via Poland. Met at the airport

    Oct 05, 2012Fifth of October, arrive from Munich via Poland. Met at the airport by my friend Roman Saskiw. Place: Kyiv, Ukraine (50.45, 30.5233)Address: Kyiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 17:03:00 UTC

  • ENOUGH LIBERTARIANISM FOR ONE DAY Enough libertarianism for one day. I will have

    ENOUGH LIBERTARIANISM FOR ONE DAY

    Enough libertarianism for one day. I will have to solve this damned problem over the next few weeks. Didn’t think I could do it but I’m almost there. Almost. Every logical argument that I can find rests upon the representation of ratios not measures. I still have the 20th century to get thru but I am pretty sure it will hold up.

    Now, we have to pick a restaurant. I want… fish! and Pasta! lol

    Actually I want chocolate. But I have willpower enough to resist it. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 13:21:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE AND THE THEORY OF ACTION : ACTIONS DEMARCATE THE REAL FROM THE UNREAL In

    SCIENCE AND THE THEORY OF ACTION : ACTIONS DEMARCATE THE REAL FROM THE UNREAL

    In praxeology, if statements cannot be expressed as human actions that are open to sympathetic testing of the rationality of incentives then the statements are not ‘scientific’.

    OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS: (Operationalism) Operational definitions are definitions of theoretical constructs that are stated in terms of concrete, observable procedures (Actions). Operational definitions solve the problem of what is not directly observable by connecting unobservable traits or experiences to things that can be observed. Operational definitions make the unobservable observable. ( the concepts or terms used in nonanalytic scientific statements must be definable in terms of identifiable and repeatable operations.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 12:34:00 UTC

  • Propertarian Analysis Is The Analysis Of Spectra, Not Of Nouns – We Did Learn Something From Supply vs Demand Curves. 🙂

    (From FB)

    Curt, what is your opinion about the relation between knowledge and information?

    Francesco, I am very skeptical of these definitions. For example, 1) Deduction, Induction and Abduction all describe the process of deduction but with decreasingly available information. 2) Knowledge, Information, Data, and Phenomena, likewise describe only our decreasing confidence in any theory’s or set of theories’ correspondence with the tools of observation available to us. The 3) correspondence between theory and Information that is necessary for personal action, that which is necessary for political action (coercion), and that which meets the standard of logical truth, is likewise a spectrum. And I see any point on those spectra as semi arbitrary unless applicable to a given question. And I see arguments to ‘truth’ often illogical in application for this reason, due to the methodological vanity of the speaker. But I am working hard right now to solve this problem, so that I can pull libertarian theory out of the french rationalism that Rothbard buried it in, into the anglo empirical from whence it came.

  • Propertarian Analysis Is The Analysis Of Spectra, Not Of Nouns – We Did Learn Something From Supply vs Demand Curves. 🙂

    (From FB)

    Curt, what is your opinion about the relation between knowledge and information?

    Francesco, I am very skeptical of these definitions. For example, 1) Deduction, Induction and Abduction all describe the process of deduction but with decreasingly available information. 2) Knowledge, Information, Data, and Phenomena, likewise describe only our decreasing confidence in any theory’s or set of theories’ correspondence with the tools of observation available to us. The 3) correspondence between theory and Information that is necessary for personal action, that which is necessary for political action (coercion), and that which meets the standard of logical truth, is likewise a spectrum. And I see any point on those spectra as semi arbitrary unless applicable to a given question. And I see arguments to ‘truth’ often illogical in application for this reason, due to the methodological vanity of the speaker. But I am working hard right now to solve this problem, so that I can pull libertarian theory out of the french rationalism that Rothbard buried it in, into the anglo empirical from whence it came.

  • DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC Listen. I know that solving the pro

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_WoA DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC

    Listen. I know that solving the problem of race is a goal of monopolistic government.

    But there are those of us who want to solve the problem of monopolistic government even if it doesn’t solve the problem of race.

    The difference between these two factors is only whether the people in government think their goal is of greater priority than the goal of those of us whose priority is freedom from monopolistic government.

    Race is a problem only because of government.

    ALthough, since most social problems are caused by government prohibiting natural economic and social behavior to play out through voluntary exchange, the fact that government tries to fix the problem it creates is both illogical and impossible.

    The way to solve the race problem is to eliminate race from government, and hopefully to eliminate government as we currently understand it: a territorial monopoly that uses violence at the whim of a predatory bureaucracy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_Wo&list=TL2UE0Zb0nryc

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 12:00:00 UTC

  • The Problem Of Competence – The Value Of Critical Rationalism : Skeptical Empiricism, Or What We Call ‘Science’.

    [T]hose who try to master fields usually end up with the Socratic opinion that ‘I don’t know anything (for certain)’. We have simply collected large sets of examples that we know do not work. But this knowledge informs us. If we cannot know much of anything, then why would we create a political system that depends upon our presumption of knowledge? I’m trying to create a political model that facilitates the presumption that we know nothing, and that people will remain desperately imperfect with fragile virtues, rather than assumes that we know anything at all, and can create a system, or people who are indeed virtuous. The scientific method, under critical rationalism bothers me a bit, and I’d like to be sure that Skeptical Empiricism isn’t an improvement on it. But in the balance between science and reason, science appears to win hands down. In the battle between critical rationalism and positivism, critical rationalism wins hands down. Despite the Krugman-DeLong Liberal fantasy that the quantitative measures are in deed measures of what they assume, rather than the noise created as England and America have violently imposed anglo universalism under ‘free trade’ around the world. This is particularly troubling because free trade benefits the most advanced technologist. It is not ‘fair’, it simply produces a virtuous cycle. But it is not a natural cycle, and it’s only possible to enforce as long as anglo culture and institutions are supported by anglo-american (cum Roman) military power. This cannot be sustainable – on purely demographic grounds. [S]o Keynesian noise is not signal. It is just a selection bias that favors Leftist Dunning Kruegerists like Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz and Thoma. At least, that’s my working hypothesis.

  • The Rate Of Technological Change Determines The Value Of Different Models Of The State

    [T]he totalitarian system, whether it’s the military or the communist system, is very useful for doing very simple things: fighting wars, imposing education, imposing some system of property rights, and building infrastructure. These are processes of execution, not of invention, research and development in consumer goods. But the totalitarian system cannot improve affairs when there is no understanding of what it must to to approve affairs. The totalitarian system cannot administrate what it does not understand, and it can only understand what is simple and preexisting. The individualist system is superior for invention. It improves affairs. It is scientific not ideological, because science is simply trial and error. For this reason the individualist model is superior when you do not know what to do, because the resource which we call technological knowledge, has been exploited into applications that are beyond the grasp of any group of individuals. If your civilization ‘falls behind’ or becomes ‘calcified by bureaucracy’ then totalitarianism (or revolution) are useful tools for fixing it. But individualism will always out-innovate totalitarianism because it places no prior (input based) constraint on the individual actors in the population. We tend to think in terms of a mixed economy in which the state should focus on execution while the private sector focuses on invention. But our government is not constructed to facilitate this behavior. Its incentives are as Hoppe has shown, to consume cultural, civic, and resource capital as fast as possible in order to maintain power. This doesn’t mean it’s not POSSIBLE to create a mixed government. It’s just not possible to do so under representative democratic republicanism in a heterogeneous polity where each generation possesses the illusion of their own genius, instead of possessing the wisdom that they are members of a cycle reacting to a chain of prior cycles, and that their preferences, beliefs and attitudes, are predictable. It’s the technology that isn’t predictable.

  • The Rate Of Technological Change Determines The Value Of Different Models Of The State

    [T]he totalitarian system, whether it’s the military or the communist system, is very useful for doing very simple things: fighting wars, imposing education, imposing some system of property rights, and building infrastructure. These are processes of execution, not of invention, research and development in consumer goods. But the totalitarian system cannot improve affairs when there is no understanding of what it must to to approve affairs. The totalitarian system cannot administrate what it does not understand, and it can only understand what is simple and preexisting. The individualist system is superior for invention. It improves affairs. It is scientific not ideological, because science is simply trial and error. For this reason the individualist model is superior when you do not know what to do, because the resource which we call technological knowledge, has been exploited into applications that are beyond the grasp of any group of individuals. If your civilization ‘falls behind’ or becomes ‘calcified by bureaucracy’ then totalitarianism (or revolution) are useful tools for fixing it. But individualism will always out-innovate totalitarianism because it places no prior (input based) constraint on the individual actors in the population. We tend to think in terms of a mixed economy in which the state should focus on execution while the private sector focuses on invention. But our government is not constructed to facilitate this behavior. Its incentives are as Hoppe has shown, to consume cultural, civic, and resource capital as fast as possible in order to maintain power. This doesn’t mean it’s not POSSIBLE to create a mixed government. It’s just not possible to do so under representative democratic republicanism in a heterogeneous polity where each generation possesses the illusion of their own genius, instead of possessing the wisdom that they are members of a cycle reacting to a chain of prior cycles, and that their preferences, beliefs and attitudes, are predictable. It’s the technology that isn’t predictable.

  • TO RETURN CARBON LEVELS TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pIHOW TO RETURN CARBON LEVELS TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT TAX SCHEMES, OR THE REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTION?

    This is how. The socialists are always wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 10:41:00 UTC