Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics i

    “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.” – F. A. Hayek

    (Thanks to Monica Fackelmayer)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 06:09:00 UTC

  • RIGHT TO A JOB? VS RIGHT TO WORK? Is having a job a right? Are jobs something th

    RIGHT TO A JOB? VS RIGHT TO WORK?

    Is having a job a right? Are jobs something that a society is obliged to provide to each individual?

    SOME OK ANSWERS BY OTHERS, BUT I WILL GIVE A BETTER ONE

    A right is something provided by a contract. We can in theory create a contract that states that every person has a right be as attractive as a victoria’s secret model. The problem is, that the provision isn’t enforceable because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequence of even trying would probably be really bad (somehow… although I can’t think of any at the moment.)

    NEGATIVE RIGHTS, are things do by avoiding doing something: killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud, are all things we can avoid doing. And since it means avoiding something, we can, every single one of us, avoid killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud and all such damage to life and property.

    Jobs are called POSITIVE RIGHTS. They require resources, and resources that no one has to provide.

    One can have a right to a job in the sense that no one can be prohibited from working, who is willing, by a government. That is a negative right. It is a right to engage in work. It says no one may restrain another from engaging in the voluntary trade of his effort in exchange for something that he wants (money.) But one cannot have the right to have a job provided, because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequences of even trying would be really bad.

    The international declaration of human rights contains a number of provisions (22-26) are positive rights, which were included in order to satisfy the then-powerful communist governments, the same way the north was required to allow for slavery in the constitution inorder to gain the compliance of the south.

    The question is whether positive rights are possible to provide. Or whether it is only possible to provide insurance against destitution (which appears possible). This important question isn’t yet answered because we haven’t been doing it long enough to be sure. It certainly appears that both Europe and the USA are having significant economic, cultural and demographic problems because of these policies – which can only be satisfied with the use of ponzi schemes.

    (And yes, I am happy to argue with anyone on this point including our favorite left wing Nobel Prize winner.)

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 05:49:00 UTC

  • THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN THE POSTMODERN RELIGION The modern histories of rel

    THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN THE POSTMODERN RELIGION

    The modern histories of religion and socialism exhibit striking parallels in development.

    1) Both religion and socialism started with a comprehensive vision that they believed to be true but not based on reason (various prophets; Rousseau)

    2) Both visions were then challenged by visions based on rational epistemologies (early naturalist critics of religion; early liberal critics of socialism).

    3) Both religion and socialism responded by saying that they could satisfy the criteria of reason (natural theology; scientific socialism).

    4) Both religion and socialism then ran into serious problems of logic and evidence (Hume’s attacks on natural theology; Mises’s and Hayek’s attacks on socialist calculation).

    5) Both then responded in turn by attacking reality and reason (Kant and Kierkegaard; postmodernists).

    6) The prevailing skeptical and irrationalist epistemologies in academic philosophy thus provided the Left with a new strategy for responding to its crisis. Any attack on socialism in any form could be brushed aside, and the desire to believe in it reaffirmed.

    7) [P]ostmodernism is a symptom of the far Left’s crisis of faith. Postmodernism is a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism.

    If one is interested in truth, then one’s rational response to a failing theory is as follows:

    1) One breaks the theory down to its constituent premises.

    2) One questions its premises vigorously and checks the logic that integrates them.

    3) One seeks out alternatives to the most questionable premises.

    4) One accepts moral responsibility for any bad consequences of putting the false theory into practice.

    This is not what we find in postmodern reflections on contemporary politics. Truth and rationality are subjected to attack, and the prevailing attitude about moral responsibility is again best stated by Rorty: “I think that a good Left is a party that always thinks about the future and doesn’t care much about our past sins.”

    One could, after doing some philosophy, come to be a true believer in subjectivism and relativism. Accordingly, one could come to believe that reason is derivative, that will and desire rule, that society is a battle of competing wills, that words are merely tools in the power struggle for dominance, and that all is fair in love and war. That is the position the Sophists argued 2400 years ago.

    The only difference, then, between the Sophists and the postmodernists is whose side they are on. [The Sophists, marshalled] subjectivist and relativistic arguments in support of the political claim that justice is the interest of the stronger. The postmodernists—coming after two millennia of Christianity and two centuries of socialist theory—simply reverse that claim: Subjectivism and relativism are true, except that the postmodernists are on the side of the weaker and historically-oppressed groups. Justice – is the interest of the weaker.

    – Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2010-10-19). Explaining Postmodernism

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM The left is a klepto

    THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM

    The left is a kleptocracy, and its religion is postmodernism.

    “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

    1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

    2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

    3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil.

    4) Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

    5) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

    There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions—especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity.

    Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

    1) Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

    2) They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

    3) They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but they know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.

    In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the up-surge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage when it has failed.”

    – Excerpted from Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism, chapter six.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 03:10:00 UTC

  • PHYSICS IS THE SCIENCE OF THE MATERIAL WORLD. PROPERTY IS THE SCIENCE OF THE COO

    PHYSICS IS THE SCIENCE OF THE MATERIAL WORLD.

    PROPERTY IS THE SCIENCE OF THE COOPERATIVE WORLD.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 02:49:00 UTC

  • ON RELIGION I don’t attack religions for being religions, or being predicated on

    ON RELIGION

    I don’t attack religions for being religions, or being predicated on whatever causal relations, for whatever reason. This is because I understand that ARATIONAL thinking is useful as a defense against reason that we disagree with. It allows us to exit the rational conversation and continue to pursue our preferences, albiet with arational, rather than rational thought.

    What I care about are the consequences of any line of thought. And in particular, that any line of thought produces negative economic consequences, because negative economic consequences reduce ALL choices for ALL people and positive economic consequences improve ALL choices for ALL people.

    If I argue in favor of the morality of PROPERTY, this allows people to adopt whatever religion that they want to, and to form in to whatever groups they want to. I have no greater concern if people gather into groups based upon religion, historical reference, or preference for a particular artist’s music, or any other reason that they want to group together.

    That is the whole point of market and property. Market and property allow us to compete on means in the market, even if we have completely opposite ends.

    The reason that we can’t all live peacefully together is that governments are monopolies, which define a monopoly of property rights, and as such we compete to gain power over government so that we can implement our version of property rights, rather than, government is a set of institutions administers the market, using PRIVATE property rights, so that groups may create whatever COMMON Property Rights among themselves that they prefer to.

    Capitalism is the only form of tolerance. The market doesn’t care about your color, or creed. Everyone is the color ‘gold’.

    Postmodernism is a religion that promote socialism, and socialism is harmful, and removes choices, and destroys the market. As such, I object to the argument that postmodernism, and its political wing ‘liberalism’, do not claim to be a religion that seeks power. I object to the argument that Islam is a religion of peace rather than a religion of tyranny and poverty. And I object to the fact that both Postmodernism and Islam will of necessity destroy economic productivity, and freedom.

    And In both cases, most likely, my race.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 02:47:00 UTC

  • How Does A Police Officer Determine If A Woman Is Lying?

    It’s actually pretty simple. They try to figure out who tells the first lie, or provides the least believable explanation.

    It is VERY easy to tell when people are lying. If you spend time at it, it’s patently obvious. The problem is, most of the time, everyone is lying.   Which is why you shouldn’t bother to lie to police. Just remain mute and let them do their thing, no matter what they say. If you must say anthing at all, then the only advice you can give anyone is to make sure that you are very clear what it is that the policeman is asking you.  Because every word you use is not evidence as you intend it, but evidence as the officer iterprets it.  

    If you say nothing other than your name and address, the worst that will happen is that you will ride in a car, go through some process, and come home the next morning a little tired. It is fear of this process that causes people to try to lie their way out of something.

    Most importantly, the police don’t try to solve crimes. They try to find reasons to arrest people, so that they can separate them, so that there isn’t any greater conflict. The only reason they odn’t arrest people is when it’s too much work to do the paper, and they’re afraid that you might spend time and money criticizing them.  But you should never even dream that the police are there to make good judgements or solve crimes.  They exist to make arrests and let the court make judgements.

    If there is a risk that their careers will be affected by a decision then they will be hostile and basically find every possible charge that they can dream up, and let the court system figure it out later.  This is their only defense against charges of impropriety or poor judgement.

    You are never in a debate or argument with a policeman. You are being interrogated, and they are trying to either catch you in a lie or make you lie and if they find that they will assume everything is your fault.

    If you are a man and the complainant is a woman, unless you can show blood it is your fault, always, everywhere. Women are never accountable for their words or actions unless they create visible harm to you.  The general assumption is that they are fairly harmless.  The general assumption is that men are dangerous.

    These are not irrational, or empirically false assumptions.

    That said, if the woman has a seedy past and the man has any assets at all it’s an even bet she’s lying. Statistically speaking we have pretty good numbers now on false rape and assault accusations.  It’s a substantial number, and I don’t keep up with it, but it’s not less than 5% and I think the 10% number looks believable.  

    The best advice is to stay away from easy women, women who are drunk, or who use drugs.

    I know…. I know….  That’s like telling moms not to shop at Walmart for the discounts, but that’s just reality.  Women don’t come at a discount.  The cost is always higher than the savings. 🙂  Its reproductive math.  It has to be that way. 🙂

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-police-officer-determine-if-a-woman-is-lying

  • Why Should I Provide My Knowledge To Quora For Free?

    Because you don’t know it’s knowledge until it’s tested.  And the only way to test knowledge (arguments) is to make them. Just like the only way to test experiments is to run them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-provide-my-knowledge-to-Quora-for-free

  • Has Anyone Benefited Tangibly From Answering On Quora, And If So By What Terms Were These Benefits?

    I think this is an interesting question.  
    1) Entertainment of yourself and others.
    2) Promotion of yourself, others, or certain ideas.
    3) Assistance of others (which is theoretically the purpose)
    4) Experimentation and refinement of your arguments.

    (1) is obvious but isn’t very valuable to anyone.
    (2) is probably a misuse (free riding) and tedious.
    (3) is the target idea but the question is what percentage of answers meet this criteria (not many).
    (4) is the scientific approach to debate structures.

    Personally, how I benefit from Quora is that it provides a large body of questions that are asked by people who are curious, and arguments by a large numbrer of people with erroneous knowledge, and as such, it’s a great place to learn how to talk or write about a subject if you don’t really understand how ‘ordinary people’ think of a topic.  The fact that answers are often bad, is actually useful because it provides insight into why people arrive at poor conclusions.  Because it is one thing to state a solution, and another to provide a route to it, that corrects the erroneous assumptions of others.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-benefited-tangibly-from-answering-on-Quora-and-if-so-by-what-terms-were-these-benefits

  • In A Hundred Years Time, What Do You Think People Will Consider To Be The Great Moral Failure Of Our Era? For The Purposes Of This Question, Let Us Define ‘our Era’ As 2000-2013.

    I WILL TRY TO GIVE  YOU A BETTER ANSWER

    1) Hayek argued that the 20th centuries and its wars would be remembered as an era of mysticism ushered in by Marx and Freud, culminating in the reliigon of Postmodernism (liberalism) – the most recent incarnation of Zoroastrianism – saying false things repeatedly in order to achieve one’s ends.  We have been fighting against this religion in science and technology for a few decades now, and this misdirection, starting in the 60’s and achieving it’s heights in the 1970’s, has consumed much of the research time in academia.

    2) it appears that this battle has resulted in a considerable number of insights into technology.  But, as our economy crumbles from having consumed the last wave of technological innovation (information technology), progress on research and development continues.

    3) The wildcard is the great upheavals that will happen in the world as western technological superiority for the past 500 years is neutralized by the adoption of consumer capitalism worldwide, and inexpensive labor in previously unindustrialized countries, lowers the RELATIVE advantage of western countries.  THe primary advantage the northern european countries had, as did the anglo countires founded by the british empire, was that the high trust society of the out-bred families (nation as a family) created a homogenous enough culture that this commercial trust could create extraordinary competitive organizations.  I suspect that the cultures that come to dominate these areas will not perpetuate the high trust society and the nuclear family for cultural reasons, and that the continued decline in the nuclear family will do the same. So that the only material cultural advantage of the west will be lost.

    4) The reason you cannot judge moral consequences in the future is that morality is a product of the reproductive strategy of people at later times, under later technologies, using later political organizations, and they tend to demonize things that are convenient, not true.  For example, aristocracy and manorialism were very important to western development  as was the church.  WIthout these institutions we could not have achieved our technical advantage over the rest of the world.  We demonized the monarchies in order to sieze power.  But there is very little evidence that supports any of our claims about victorian industrial evils or evils of kings and princes. In fact, the evidence is pretty much the other direction.  SO if we demonize things that were good, and we still admire things that aer terribly evil (socialism and communism) then why should we thing that there is a rational basis for future moral contrivances, other than whatever convenience suits their cause at the time?

    Hopefully this provides some thought and context. I suspect hayek will be correct amongst intellectuals if he is remembered for it.  Otherwise, it is just as likely that they will think were are stupid for our form of social security instead of the singaporean – for purely logical reasons.   Why didn’t we adopt the singaporean model of social security?  It might be that they accuse us of doing it for relgious reasons – and they would be right.

    https://www.quora.com/In-a-hundred-years-time-what-do-you-think-people-will-consider-to-be-the-great-moral-failure-of-our-era-For-the-purposes-of-this-question-let-us-define-our-era-as-2000-2013