Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Racism, Loading and Framing

    [G]ad,
    I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.

    The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.

    Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism

    Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.

    Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.

    SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )

    FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.

  • #Cuckold #cuckservative and #cuck have staying power. Very sticky. (Maybe I’m ol

    #Cuckold #cuckservative and #cuck have staying power. Very sticky.

    (Maybe I’m old fashioned by I just call them betas and pussies.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 03:22:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 02:37:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://ecgi.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=676067083085098093115029072117071078034050019023060074029023106088102023030125090099032060018032059046053102106093016028122015126023030041068069024115104022070014004063087010025066081106120075025064002073102019125007074019085086025098001004074126067&EXT=pdf&TYPE=1

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-26 13:19:00 UTC

  • Damn Emil Suric, you write well and think clearly!!! Such a pleasure to read

    Damn Emil Suric, you write well and think clearly!!!

    Such a pleasure to read.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-26 02:07:00 UTC

  • CURT, I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR CRITICISM OF MISES… —“I’ve seen you criticize

    http://www.propertarianism.com/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/Q&A: CURT, I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR CRITICISM OF MISES…

    —“I’ve seen you criticize Mises and I’m not sure I’ve fully understood your critique. Would it be fair to compare your criticism to modern science’s correction of the Greeks? I’m referring to the definition of modern science as inductive reasoning based on observation (empiricism) in contrast to the Greeks’ deduction based on self-evident truth. (Intuition vs. sensory information)

    Well, if it was easily reducible to something simple, someone would have figured this problem out before. And it wouldn’t have stumped mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others in other fields.”—

    ANSWER

    I could be lazy and point you to the series of posts on this topic:

    http://www.propertarianism.com/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/

    Scroll down to (or search for) “REFORMING THE SCIENCES” That section covers it pretty thoroughly.

    Or, I could try to make it easy for you and point you to this single post:

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

    Or, I could spend a little effort and tell you that a whole bunch of philosophers failed to expand the scientific method in the 19th and 20th when our means of instrumental measurement exceeded our understanding of the limits of our perceptions.

    Mises is one of the philosophers who failed. In failing he created a pseudoscience. Whereas the others merely failed to understand what they had discovered.

    Economics is as empirical as any other science. But just as we cannot state that a formula is existentially possible in mathematics without a proof that it can be constructed from possible mathematical operations, we cannot state that an economic statement is possible if we cannot construct it from possible human operations. Conversely, we cannot possibly deduce all of economics. Yet we can explain all of economics if we try.

    Mises made a profound mistake of conflating a negative test – a form of falsification – with a positive means of discovery.

    He made the error all germans did: that justification can be used in matters of science. It cannot be.

    Contracts and moral arguments can be justified, but truth propositions merely survive criticism.

    This is a very advanced bit of a failure of philosophy in intellectual history so it’s not trivial to grasp.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-25 16:23:00 UTC

  • Gad, I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements t

    Gad,

    I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.

    The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.

    Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism

    Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.

    Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.

    SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )

    FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:11:00 UTC

  • Does this fit in with your work? Pétur Halldórsson has done some really interest

    Does this fit in with your work? Pétur Halldórsson has done some really interesting research on ancient settlement patterns.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 12:00:00 UTC

  • @washingtonpost Umbrellas are thankfully, an inexpensive, and dependable technol

    @washingtonpost Umbrellas are thankfully, an inexpensive, and dependable technology for safeguarding against the damaging effects of rain.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 10:43:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623805547691835392

  • re:Girard. Love your references. Do you know how hard it is to find people who c

    re:Girard. Love your references. Do you know how hard it is to find people who can talk about mathematical foundations? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 10:05:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623796096528162816

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622534321794973696

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622534321794973696