Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • CONTROVERSIAL POST ON RACE, POLITICS, NORMS, AND MULTICULTURALISM (A reply to th

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/07/defending-john-derbyshire-dear-brits-get-ready-to-eat-crow-on-race/A CONTROVERSIAL POST ON RACE, POLITICS, NORMS, AND MULTICULTURALISM

    (A reply to the Guardian)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-08 11:43:00 UTC

  • CONFUSION AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WIKIPEDIA FAILS

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/04/caplan-and-boettke-on-wikipedia-and-the-economic-calculation-debate/AUSTRIAN CONFUSION AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WIKIPEDIA FAILS

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-06 14:50:00 UTC

  • MOST ABUSED BIT OF REASONING ON THE INTERNET

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/05/godels-theorem-needs-godels-law/THE MOST ABUSED BIT OF REASONING ON THE INTERNET

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-05 12:40:00 UTC

  • than jump on Skye’s thread I’m going to walk through this just to see what I com

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/04/the-inexpressible.htmlRather than jump on Skye’s thread I’m going to walk through this just to see what I come up with. (Yes, some of us do not have preconceived notions we are blindly attached to. We make arguments to test our ideas. We find the outcomes no matter how unpleasant they are. Usually proving we’re wrong somehow in the process. ) 🙂

    [autistic dialog on]

    QUESTION: Are Some Ideas Inexpressible?

    ANALYSIS: There are patterns we recognize but whose identity, and therefore causality is not yet understood by us. If that causality is not understood then further knowledge must be gained. Such things are not inexpressible they are simply not understood. Once that causality is understood identity is known. Causality and identity must be expressed in language. Language consists of analogies to experience. We can experience such concepts, therefore we can express it via language, however imprecise that language may be. The problem arises when we seek communication rather than expression. Communication requires a shared experience. Or at least rough enough analogies to shared experience that each step in that walk can be followed by the listener. If we are unable to walk someone through a line of thinking, feeling, and experiencing concepts that are either foreign or biologically incomprehensible to them, then we cannot communicate with them. Because communication requires we recognize those shared experiences. One cannot experience what one cannot comprehend by at least analogies to the senses, and abstractions require complex coordination of the senses. The blind man can never understand color. Some of us can never, no mater how hard we try, understand — which means experience — certain categories of knowledge. We are color blind — actually concept blind — to them. I do not think things are inexpressible. They may be incommunicable. As incommunicable they may be untestable. And as us untestable we cannot be sure whether our expression is sufficiently articulate to convey the experience, or whether the recipient is sufficiently possessed of the senses with which to perceive the content of our expressions. (or in most cases, the short term memory required.)

    I do not think ideas are inexpressible if they are available to the senses of any individual. And I have found (adorno’s ramblings included) that the problem lies not in the idea, but in the insufficient labor that was put into articulating it as a series of experiences that the audience can follow — assuming they are able to. More often, (adorno included again) the incompetence at articulation is not a product of laziness, but of deception, erroneous perceptions of the physical world, erroneous concepts of human nature, and psychological avoidance. All of which are conducted abstractly out of complex analogies, because in that obscurity, they make it difficult to detect what our experience would convey to us as faulty. In adorno’s case, like many others, I suspect that the last case arises: it’s not that he doesn’t understand, not that he cannot articulate, not that we cannot perceive, but that we DISAGREE WITH HIS VALUE JUDGEMENTS if he rendered them in the language of common experience. A language which exists precisely because it is tested against the real world daily, and has been honed by trial and error over time to meet its current state.

    Therefore the questions to raise whenever someone states that something is inexpressible are:

    1) Do you understand its causal relations?

    2) Can you articulate those causal relations in terms of shared experiences (even if those experiences are simply formulae)?

    3) Do I lack those shared experiences? Am I capable of understanding those relations if you explain them? Or are you unable to articulate those relations? Which?

    4) If I am capable of understanding those relations, is the reward sufficient that I want to invest in learning those experiences and relations instead of some other set of relations and experiences?

    4) Do I agree that those causal relations correspond to reality if I can understand them?

    5) Do I agree with the value judgements expressed by those causal relations if I can understand them?

    In wittgenstein’s case, I kind of doubt that he was sure himself whether he understood. And I think later writers have stated as such. (That’s ok. It gave grad students something to do.) In Adorno’s case I think he was just creating a mess in order to advocate his ideas while avoiding unveiling the miscreant underlying his language. And he was a miscreant. (But then, maybe I’m wrong. I don’t understand Heidegger either. Because I lack empathy for his values and experience. And I do not see the value in obtaining the knowledge necessary to empathize with him, and therefore build a shared experience.) 🙂

    Sorry if that was too long, but I just wanted to walk through it and see what I came up with. [Autistic dialog off]

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-04 16:12:00 UTC

  • Defending Hans Hermann Hoppe On Immigration

    I have to defend Hoppe a lot less frequently these days from passionate critics who don’t understand him, but here is another one. I don’t think I do a very good job really. But I get the discussion started.

    By Garry Ladouceur:

     THIS IS WHAT THIS ACADEMIC HAS TO SAY ABOUT IMMIGRATION-HE IS OF COURSE A MADMAN.

    First, with the establishment of a state and territorially defined state borders, “immigration” takes on an entirely new meaning. In a natural order, immigration is a person’s migration from one neighborhood-community into a different one (micro-migration).

    Is Garry saying that neighborhoods consisting of parcels of private property, or which consist of domicilies that are collectively ‘owned’ by shareholders (a defined community) as a ‘commons’ are a natural order without the existence of a “state”, or without the tribal equivalent that consists of a headman and a few warriors who have been arguably as defensive of resources and norms or more so than states? Where does Gary get his concept of ‘natural order” Is he making the fallacy of primitivism? The noble savage fallacy?

    In contrast, under statist conditions immigration is immigration by “foreigners” from across state borders, and the decision whom to exclude or include, and under what conditions, rests not with a multitude of independent private property owners or neighborhoods of owners but with a single central (and centralizing) state-government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and their properties (macro-migration).

    Is Gary saying that the state behaves differently than do the tribesman? Because we don’t have much evidence of that. Another mouth to feed is another mouth to feed, and an immigrant’s mouth to feed is not a member of our gene pool to which we have filial instincts.

    If a domestic resident-owner invites a person and arranges for his access onto the resident-owner’s property but the government ex- cludes this person from the state territory,it is a case of forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist in a natural order). On the other hand, if the government admits a person while there is no domestic resident-owner who has invited this person onto his property, it is a case of forced integration (also non-existent in a natural order, where all movement is invited).

    This argument limits the determination of just action to the act of movement, not to involuntary transfers, or their effects on supposed commons. So it’s just false on it’s premise. Groups encourage transport and trade. They always have, regardless of political construct. What they discourage is appropriation of the ‘commons’, and most importantly the disruption of the commons that we call ‘norms’. Norms are highly expensive. More so than property. And we protect them voraciously by instinct.

    Firstly, Hoppe has migrated endlessly.  This means that he is not honest.  I find him a liar.  That is not a good start to developing a teacher taught relationship.  

    Secondly, He is German of the Austrian school.  He speaks of natural order.  He is of course a fascist as well.  He does not speak to the favourite form of immigration in Europe and Europe to elsewhere which is at the point of a bayonet. So in other words he is dishonest.  

    You simply do not understand what Hoppe is saying.

    Hoppe atttempts (and some of us think he has succeeded) in deducing a means of making political judgments by relying upon the single principle of property rights. Property rights are dependent on the principles of avoiding fraud and theft, and prohibiting involuntary transfers. All that’s going on here, like most people who criticize Hoppe, is that you don’t know all the types of involuntary transfer (theft) you advocate with your beliefs. Hoppe has tried make all those ‘thefts’ and acts of violence visible. A Few Definitions:

    Order : any system of human cooperation (avoiding theft fraud and violence) that avoids chaos (pervasive theft fraud and violence).

    Natural Order = natural rotation of elites by voluntary exchange in the market, rather than by military force or political force. (Oversimplified).

    Immigration vs Migration. migration is what occurs whenever a person transfers geographic location without fraud, theft or violence. Immigration is what happens when they PAY for migration. When people immigrate without PAYING for that immigration they are committing an act of theft, fraud or violence.

    Citizenship mens you have obtained membership in an ORDER by avoiding theft fraud and violence, and that you maintain your membership in that order by forgoing theft, fraud and violence.

    Any forcible transfer by a government from ont or more people to one or more people is an involuntary transfer under the treat of violence. Any contractual transfer between people in mutual exchange is a voluntary transfer, and therefore not an act of theft, fraud or violence.

    Hoppe is arguing that open immigration is incompatible with a welfare state because it causes theft from the existing tax payers to the immigrant. This argument is pretty hard to defeat.

    Your only defense is that you have the right, by some divine authority, to determine who can be solen from under the threat of violence in order to give to someone else — which is an act in which you profit by not having to satisfy your wants with your own resources.

    Hoppe would argue that we can have as many voluntary little ‘countries’ that we want, and that rednecks and racists, and homophobes, and every feminist, separatist anad whatever advocacy one has should exist voluntarily without conducting transfers from people who disagree with that.

    In other words, there is no moral argument for stealing from people to give to other people.

    I suspect from your emotionally loaded posting that analytical philosophy is not something you have exposure to. It requires that we make a long series of testable statements. Hoppe uses that language. It is not the simple moralistic language of the public intellectual or the common person. Which is why he is poorly understood.

    One of the reasons people dislike him is that he has put forth arguments that are very difficult to dismiss. Both he and rothbard may START from different positions ( evolutionary necessity and natural law respectively.) Since they produced their works, we have improved our understanding of economics, psychology (jonathan haidt), political history (Fukuyama on one end and North on the other). And people like me have attempted to reduce their original premises to something more scientifically mandated.

    You might not understand that Hoppe started out as a marxist and through his work adopted his current position. His first major work was written on socialism and in that work he shows how it is logically impossible. (As does mises on one end, and hayek on another — although hoppe opposes hayek.)

    Hopefully I’ve helped you with Hoppe. (Although I kind of doubt you care.)

    Also, please define “facist”. One cannot be a ‘fascist’ without a state. So how, if he rejects the state can he be a fascist?

    I will happily debate you on Hoppe to your heart’s content. And I know him quite well and he does not mitigate. Ever.

    Curt

  • LIBERTARIANS DON’T TRUST SCIENTISTS

    http://cafehayek.com/2012/04/fake-science-everywhere.htmlWHY LIBERTARIANS DON’T TRUST SCIENTISTS

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-01 20:32:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES RIDICULE THE PROGRESSIVES FROM THE SIXTIES Chanting that progressi

    CONSERVATIVES RIDICULE THE PROGRESSIVES FROM THE SIXTIES

    Chanting that progressives are trapped in an non-existent world.

    But conservatives are trapped in the same context.

    Libertarians have answers.

    Libertarians have the only answers.

    It just may not be the anarcho-capitalist libertarians that have the answers.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-31 10:02:00 UTC

  • to sync with Haidt’s work raterh than invesnt new terms, but this is good though

    http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/how-we-might-become-politically-obligatedNeeds to sync with Haidt’s work raterh than invesnt new terms, but this is good thought Aaron.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-30 11:33:00 UTC

  • Does Mankind Flourish Under Conservatism?

    QUESTION

    [Edited for Clarity – CD] I have a question. Curt stated that conservatism consists of true premises advanced by mythology and irrationalism. The theory that “conservatism = true premises advanced by mythology” is itself a descriptive theory that is part of conservatism, i.e., it is a self-description of conservatism. There are other descriptive theories associated with conservatism, such as supply-side economics (which is likely mythological). Which conservative theories are mythology and which provide the “true premise” that mankind flourishes under conservatism? If there is no way to differentiate propaganda from science, then what prevents us from concluding that the theory that “conservatism = true premises advanced by mythology” is itself mythology? — Harris

    Note: I think he has a good question under there. So I had a run at it. 1) conservatism is a relative position to the status quo. Classical liberalism (representative government limited by rule of law under a hard constitution) and aristocratic manorialism (individual property rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the institution of marriage, and prohibition on consanguineous bonds) are the institutions that conservatives are conservative ‘about’. These two systems can be articulated with a high degree of specificity. Socialism (control of means of production) and democratic socialism (control of the results of production) left-classical liberalism (property is individually owned but that we have a moral responsibility for charity) can be articulated as well. Progressives favore one of these two positions. 2) Science is observation. Measurement improves science. Logic is analysis of statements. One can test both progressive and conservative prescriptions by testing their outcomes over some extended period of time. We know that the principles of communism and socialism are logically impossible, and contrary to observed (scientific) human behavior, but that did not stop people from applying them. We knew that the progressives were wrong on incarceration, and wrong on urban construction projects, and wrong on welfare, and wrong on price controls, wrong on state ownership of property, and wrong on collective ownership of property. 3) While “Supply side” economics does not work because we incorrectly understood the degree of taxation that could be appropriated without Pareto-Inefficient externalities, the concept that we should invest in productivity is not false. The germans have proven it yet again. The practical problem with productivity enhancement is that the left believes that consumption (demand) is the driver to the economy and that here are no negative externalities to that proposition — which we have just demonstrated to be false, by misallocating a generation of human capital and making lower class americans uncompetitive with their international peers. So it is better to say, that we are simply unsure of economics and are experimenting upon ourselves. The conservative model eliminates this problem through individual accountability. The concept is called ‘calculability’. Or, the ability to plan. The ability to plan is secured by institutions that disallow involuntary transfers. The government we have created however, conducts a multitude of involuntary transfers. This is the difference between the aristocratic meritocratic manorial and the communal egalitarian authoritarian models: conservative models are calculable. People posses the knowledge to plan. Fiat money, pooling of taxes, credit inflation, all serve the purpose of increasing demand, and eliminating the problem of scarce hard currency, but they also distort planning and provide people with an inaccurate picture of reality – precisely what prices do for us. The present us with an accurate and simplistic view of the needs and wants of others. Distorting the pricing system basically ‘lies’ to us. 4) A mythology consists of history, moral narratives, moral and ethical codes and religious dogmas as well as rituals. They produce good or bad outcomes regardless of whether the rationally articulated statements they contain are true or false. Effectively they are analogies. Or general principles that can be applied in a multitude of circumstances. Conversely, Economic and social hypotheses consist of either true or false statements. The presumption of Physical, mental and economic equality is a false statement because we an test that empirically. We are unequal. We are only equal in that the common law and the constitution must apply the same rules to all of us equally. The invention that we have equal clame to outcomes is an invention that arose out of the luxury of temporary wealth created by the use of fossile fuels, wich allowed us to move labor from farm to factor, and factory to burger joint and health food store. The question is whether it POSSIBLE to make it appear to be a true statement by using institutions available to us, without at the same time undermining the very economic system that allows billions of us to cooperate despite our pervasive ignorance and fragmentary knowledge in real time. THe answer is no. We know we cannot do it. At best we can ameliorate the very worst if we inhibit the breeding of the lower classes. 5) The conservative strategy since the late 1970s has been to starve the beast: to force the bankruptcy of the socialist state before the socialist state could gain control of the entrepreneurial class. To some degree there is nothing honest in the progressive or the conservative public debates. In effect, as Schumpeter stated, there is a war between the capitalist / entrepreneurial class, and the proletarian / labor / public intellectual (academic) class, over the control of government. The stakes in this struggle are very high. I suggest that the numbers work out that they left has accomplished through immigration what it could not accomplish through argument — and that the days of conservatism, and the days of a united states that spans a continent are numbered. I do not have any idea how long it can persist, but history contains no example of this diverse a region with these varied a group of cultures and economic interests that can persist. So in the end, no one will win. That will be the lesson we will leave behind us. Despite the fact that the libertarians did come up with a solution, they were unable to do it quickly enough with the 1980’s to early 90s probably being the last possible era where action was possible. 6) Mankind flourishes under property rights. Classical liberalism consists entirely of property rights. THe manorial system controls against dysgenics, and controls the ethical economy: manners, ethics, morals, norms and myths. All societies that have urbanized have died. The reason i propose, is that the systems of economic calculation (property rights and the institutions that support them) were not possible to compensate for density. I argue that credit score and access to credit has now taken the place of reputation and citizenship. However, that is no defense against the destruction of norms and in particular loss of the high-trust society. So yes, mankind flourishes under conservatism, because conservatism is property rights and control of breeding by the underclasses, and over consumption of resources, and progressivism is the destruction of property rights, destruction of our capacity for economic calculation, destruction of the nuclear family and the high trust society, dysgenic overbreeding of the underclasses, overconsumption, pollution and destruction of the resources of the planet. The main difference between the world views is the belief that a woman has a right to bear children that are the responsibility of others to pay for, or whether a woman only has rights to bear children that she can afford to pay for without the assistance of others. This is the underlying conflict. Without this conflict there is no dispute. Just as all political questions can be reduced to a problem of property rights. All political conflict can be reduced to this one question: the difference between the masculine and feminine mating strategy. And in that sense, nothing we say in politics is rational, but everything we do is entirely so.

  • Does Mankind Flourish Under Conservatism?

    QUESTION

    [Edited for Clarity – CD] I have a question. Curt stated that conservatism consists of true premises advanced by mythology and irrationalism. The theory that “conservatism = true premises advanced by mythology” is itself a descriptive theory that is part of conservatism, i.e., it is a self-description of conservatism. There are other descriptive theories associated with conservatism, such as supply-side economics (which is likely mythological). Which conservative theories are mythology and which provide the “true premise” that mankind flourishes under conservatism? If there is no way to differentiate propaganda from science, then what prevents us from concluding that the theory that “conservatism = true premises advanced by mythology” is itself mythology? — Harris

    Note: I think he has a good question under there. So I had a run at it. 1) conservatism is a relative position to the status quo. Classical liberalism (representative government limited by rule of law under a hard constitution) and aristocratic manorialism (individual property rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the institution of marriage, and prohibition on consanguineous bonds) are the institutions that conservatives are conservative ‘about’. These two systems can be articulated with a high degree of specificity. Socialism (control of means of production) and democratic socialism (control of the results of production) left-classical liberalism (property is individually owned but that we have a moral responsibility for charity) can be articulated as well. Progressives favore one of these two positions. 2) Science is observation. Measurement improves science. Logic is analysis of statements. One can test both progressive and conservative prescriptions by testing their outcomes over some extended period of time. We know that the principles of communism and socialism are logically impossible, and contrary to observed (scientific) human behavior, but that did not stop people from applying them. We knew that the progressives were wrong on incarceration, and wrong on urban construction projects, and wrong on welfare, and wrong on price controls, wrong on state ownership of property, and wrong on collective ownership of property. 3) While “Supply side” economics does not work because we incorrectly understood the degree of taxation that could be appropriated without Pareto-Inefficient externalities, the concept that we should invest in productivity is not false. The germans have proven it yet again. The practical problem with productivity enhancement is that the left believes that consumption (demand) is the driver to the economy and that here are no negative externalities to that proposition — which we have just demonstrated to be false, by misallocating a generation of human capital and making lower class americans uncompetitive with their international peers. So it is better to say, that we are simply unsure of economics and are experimenting upon ourselves. The conservative model eliminates this problem through individual accountability. The concept is called ‘calculability’. Or, the ability to plan. The ability to plan is secured by institutions that disallow involuntary transfers. The government we have created however, conducts a multitude of involuntary transfers. This is the difference between the aristocratic meritocratic manorial and the communal egalitarian authoritarian models: conservative models are calculable. People posses the knowledge to plan. Fiat money, pooling of taxes, credit inflation, all serve the purpose of increasing demand, and eliminating the problem of scarce hard currency, but they also distort planning and provide people with an inaccurate picture of reality – precisely what prices do for us. The present us with an accurate and simplistic view of the needs and wants of others. Distorting the pricing system basically ‘lies’ to us. 4) A mythology consists of history, moral narratives, moral and ethical codes and religious dogmas as well as rituals. They produce good or bad outcomes regardless of whether the rationally articulated statements they contain are true or false. Effectively they are analogies. Or general principles that can be applied in a multitude of circumstances. Conversely, Economic and social hypotheses consist of either true or false statements. The presumption of Physical, mental and economic equality is a false statement because we an test that empirically. We are unequal. We are only equal in that the common law and the constitution must apply the same rules to all of us equally. The invention that we have equal clame to outcomes is an invention that arose out of the luxury of temporary wealth created by the use of fossile fuels, wich allowed us to move labor from farm to factor, and factory to burger joint and health food store. The question is whether it POSSIBLE to make it appear to be a true statement by using institutions available to us, without at the same time undermining the very economic system that allows billions of us to cooperate despite our pervasive ignorance and fragmentary knowledge in real time. THe answer is no. We know we cannot do it. At best we can ameliorate the very worst if we inhibit the breeding of the lower classes. 5) The conservative strategy since the late 1970s has been to starve the beast: to force the bankruptcy of the socialist state before the socialist state could gain control of the entrepreneurial class. To some degree there is nothing honest in the progressive or the conservative public debates. In effect, as Schumpeter stated, there is a war between the capitalist / entrepreneurial class, and the proletarian / labor / public intellectual (academic) class, over the control of government. The stakes in this struggle are very high. I suggest that the numbers work out that they left has accomplished through immigration what it could not accomplish through argument — and that the days of conservatism, and the days of a united states that spans a continent are numbered. I do not have any idea how long it can persist, but history contains no example of this diverse a region with these varied a group of cultures and economic interests that can persist. So in the end, no one will win. That will be the lesson we will leave behind us. Despite the fact that the libertarians did come up with a solution, they were unable to do it quickly enough with the 1980’s to early 90s probably being the last possible era where action was possible. 6) Mankind flourishes under property rights. Classical liberalism consists entirely of property rights. THe manorial system controls against dysgenics, and controls the ethical economy: manners, ethics, morals, norms and myths. All societies that have urbanized have died. The reason i propose, is that the systems of economic calculation (property rights and the institutions that support them) were not possible to compensate for density. I argue that credit score and access to credit has now taken the place of reputation and citizenship. However, that is no defense against the destruction of norms and in particular loss of the high-trust society. So yes, mankind flourishes under conservatism, because conservatism is property rights and control of breeding by the underclasses, and over consumption of resources, and progressivism is the destruction of property rights, destruction of our capacity for economic calculation, destruction of the nuclear family and the high trust society, dysgenic overbreeding of the underclasses, overconsumption, pollution and destruction of the resources of the planet. The main difference between the world views is the belief that a woman has a right to bear children that are the responsibility of others to pay for, or whether a woman only has rights to bear children that she can afford to pay for without the assistance of others. This is the underlying conflict. Without this conflict there is no dispute. Just as all political questions can be reduced to a problem of property rights. All political conflict can be reduced to this one question: the difference between the masculine and feminine mating strategy. And in that sense, nothing we say in politics is rational, but everything we do is entirely so.