Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • You’ll find David Friedman’s two last posts of interest

    You’ll find David Friedman’s two last posts of interest,

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 19:56:00 UTC

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • The Pareto Principle In Everything

    1% of people cause everything, and that 1% own 20% of everything 19% of people control everything and own 60% of everything by taking cues from the 1%. 80% of people are labor or consumers who own 20% and are directed by by the 19%. It’s not just america. It’s everywhere. It has to be that way, Because that is now knowledge is organized. And that’s partly because how IQ is distributed.

  • The Difference Between Legal Equality and Civil Inequality

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIOS

    Print
    Lies are lies, even if they are comforting lies. Falsehoods are falsehoods even if they are comforting falsehoods. In my work, I have to deal with facts, if I want to find new solutions to the failings of western social democracy. I can’t do that if people believe falsehoods. THE NECESSITY OF RATIONAL ACTION Justice must be blind, but the rest of us must not be.

    “…The problem is that profiling is an indispensable part of a living a safe, rational life…. ” – Taki’s Blog

    Author John Derbyshire said exactly the same thing last year, and lost his job for it. His job, in the dark enlightenment movement, is to point out the failings of enlightenment and postmodern thought. He tries to do it with british humor. Which may work or not. But that’s his work, just like most people in the dark enlightenment. I defended him, and the Village Voice called me a member of the ‘hard right’. I’m actually a left-leaning libertarian by most accounts, making me a classical liberal on most things. But a conservative on the nature of man. That is because both left liberalism and right morality appear to consist largely of correct propositions – even if they are poorly stated in archaic or silly language. HARD FACTS AND UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS That the law must treat all of us equally for it to be a just law, the fact is that we are not equal as individuals, and as groups we exaggerate those inequalities. And while the law MUST treat us equally to function justly, we CANNOT treat each other equally and function safely.

    “…There actually are huge statistical differences in behavior by demographic groups. For example, an obscure Obama Administration report admitted: “…While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%). “…Yet to many Americans these days, the thought of noticing giant facts such as this 27-to-1 ratio seems like blasphemy against the Declaration of Independence’s “proposition” that “all men are created equal.”

    POSTMODERN RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN LAW It is as irrational to attempt to preserve the falsehood of equality, as it is to preserve any other RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD. This falsehood alone is enough to convict Postmodernism as a civic RELIGION, and therefore ban it from inclusion and support of state action. Law must consist of truth, or it cannot be just.

  • BRAIN STUFF: “VERBAL OVERSHADOWING” When talking about something screws up your

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03201107INTERESTING BRAIN STUFF: “VERBAL OVERSHADOWING”

    When talking about something screws up your memory of it.

    I sometimes tell people “If I talk about it, it will ruin my thought process”. I’ve noticed this is particularly true if I’m trying to predict some future event. So I actively avoid talking about certain things until I’m ready.

    Same thing happens to authors who talk about their work, or show their work to people. Overshadowing alters your perception of it. Irreversibly.

    We cannot often separate things. The mind has vaporously thin walls.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 11:48:00 UTC

  • SUPERIORITY EVERYWHERE: 80% NATURE 20% NURTURE It’s so slow it’s like water tort

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000810?np=yGENETIC SUPERIORITY EVERYWHERE: 80% NATURE 20% NURTURE

    It’s so slow it’s like water torture, but each day we chip away at the progressive fantasy of the blank slate.

    (Now, if I’d just gotten the TALL genes, instead of the Breton genes… lol)

    MORE ON IQ:

    1) More than half of the difference between expert and normal readers is genetic.

    2) Expert readers show the same genetic effects as normal readers.

    3) Less than a fifth of the expert-normal difference is due to shared environment.

    4) Passive models of training regimes imposed on children address ‘what could be’.

    5) Active models of selected environments will foster the acquisition of expertise.

    Abstract

    Rather than investigating the extent to which training can improve performance under experimental conditions (‘what could be’), we ask about the origins of expertise as it exists in the world (‘what is’). We used the twin method to investigate the genetic and environmental origins of exceptional performance in reading, a skill that is a major focus of educational training in the early school years. Selecting reading experts as the top 5% from a sample of 10,000 12-year-old twins assessed on a battery of reading tests, three findings stand out. First, we found that genetic factors account for more than half of the difference in performance between expert and normal readers. Second, our results suggest that reading expertise is the quantitative extreme of the same genetic and environmental factors that affect reading performance for normal readers. Third, growing up in the same family and attending the same schools account for less than a fifth of the difference between expert and normal readers. We discuss implications and interpretations (‘what is inherited is DNA sequence variation’; ‘the abnormal is normal’). Finally, although there is no necessary relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’, the most far-reaching issues about the acquisition of expertise lie at the interface between them (‘the nature of nurture: from a passive model of imposed environments to an active model of shaped experience’).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 10:24:00 UTC

  • DIVERSITY WORKS FOR THE SMALL Small is how ‘diversity’ can work: diverse inter-s

    DIVERSITY WORKS FOR THE SMALL

    Small is how ‘diversity’ can work: diverse inter-state trade, rather than diverse intra-state politics.

    Switzerland has 27 ‘states’ each with it’s own constitution, direct democracy, only one of which is over 1M people (Zurich), and the majority of which are in the tens of thousands. This is consistent with democratic theory as we understand it: small works. Largely because government cannot be used to accumulate power, and because each small area is homogenous, and has its own signals.

    Denmark consists of 5.7M, in 5 Regions, from .5M – 1.7M, and 89% of whom are ethnic danes, and less than 8% who are immigrants.

    Sweden consists of 9M people 86% of whom are native Swedes and only ~4.1% are immigrants from non western countries. (turkey, iran, iraq, somalia)

    Norway consists of 5M people, 89% of whom are native Norwegian and only ~6% are non western immigrants.

    Small homogenous nation states, and lots of them, are better solutions to free and happy and prosperous people. Big states can accumulate debt, engage in war, and must manage inter-group competition by political and apolitical means, instead of by trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 09:28:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIO

    http://takimag.com/article/the_failure_of_profiling_racists_steve_sailer/printTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIOS

    Lies are lies, even if they are comforting lies. Falsehoods are falsehoods even if they are comforting falsehoods. In my work, I have to deal with facts, if I want to find new solutions to the failings of western social democracy. I can’t do that if people believe falsehoods.

    THE NECESSITY OF RATIONAL ACTION

    Justice must be blind, but the rest of us must not be.

    “…The problem is that profiling is an indispensable part of a living a safe, rational life…. ” – Taki’s Blog

    Author John Derbyshire said exactly the same thing last year, and lost his job for it.

    His job, in the dark enlightenment movement, is to point out the failings of enlightenment and postmodern thought. He tries to do it with british humor. Which may work or not. But that’s his work, just like most people in the dark enlightenment.

    I defended him, and the Village Voice called me a member of the ‘hard right’. I’m actually a left-leaning libertarian by most accounts, making me a classical liberal on most things. But a conservative on the nature of man. That is because both left liberalism and right morality appear to consist largely of correct propositions – even if they are poorly stated in archaic or silly language.

    HARD FACTS AND UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

    That the law must treat all of us equally for it to be a just law, the fact is that we are not equal as individuals, and as groups we exaggerate those inequalities. And while the law MUST treat us equally to function justly, we CANNOT treat each other equally and function safely.

    “…There actually are huge statistical differences in behavior by demographic groups. For example, an obscure Obama Administration report admitted:

    “…While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%).

    “…Yet to many Americans these days, the thought of noticing giant facts such as this 27-to-1 ratio seems like blasphemy against the Declaration of Independence’s “proposition” that “all men are created equal.”

    POSTMODERN RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN LAW

    It is as irrational to attempt to preserve the falsehood of equality, as it is to preserve any other RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD. This falsehood alone is enough to convict Postmodernism as a civic RELIGION, and therefore ban it from inclusion and support of state action.

    Law must consist of truth, or it cannot be just.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 04:27:00 UTC

  • RULES

    http://www.inequality.is/PARETO RULES

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 01:27:00 UTC