Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • LOADING AND FRAMING You can load and frame with reason – that’s what we use it f

    LOADING AND FRAMING

    You can load and frame with reason – that’s what we use it for: moral persuasion.

    You can load, frame and obscure with rationalism – it’s easy, that’s what rationalism is for.

    You can load and frame science – it’s much harder, but it can be done.

    But it’s very, very hard to load and frame analytic logic, although obscurantism is still common.

    It’s almost impossible to load, frame and obscure operational definitions.

    And Propertarianism is a formal logic of operational definitions.

    That’s why Propertarianism is so frustrating to Libertines.

    It’s shows how they load, frame, and obscure their misrepresentation of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-02 08:29:00 UTC

  • on Reason

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/lfd-.pdfMiller on Reason

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-26 21:27:00 UTC

  • WHAT ARE WE TO ACCOMPLISH? Sheldon Richmond : ———-“So, one of the signs th

    WHAT ARE WE TO ACCOMPLISH?

    Sheldon Richmond :

    ———-“So, one of the signs that we want to look out for, and one of the most important signs, happens in how we approach communication. Are we really out to reach human beings? Are we really out to build a bridge to somebody whose context may be very different from our own? Do we still remember that a lot of what we now regard as self-evident once upon a time wasn’t self-evident? Or do we walk into a conversation on the premise: I’ll give you one chance, after which you’re irredeemably evil?”———

    The problem with this ambition, like all enlightenment visions, is that the scientific evidence is increasingly persuasive that we cannot convince anyone of anything. Instead well all sentimentally feel, verbally justify, politically advocate and demonstrate by vote, our reproductive interests by gender, class, age, and tribe. All talk is just attempt at negotiation with others in the hope to find allies in order to obtain power by which to increase the possibility that we may satisfy our reproductive interests.

    Libertarianism, like conservatism, and like progressivism, assumes a monopoly political order for the provision of commons both physical, institutional, and normative: that OUR reproductive strategy (non-contribution to the commons), is best for all. When in fact, what is best for all is three different political orders: socialist, propertarian (versus libertarian), and conservative (aristocratic). And that the only moral question, is not whether one organizational model is superior to another, but instead, that regardless of which order we prefer – that the only transfer between individuals regardless of order, is voluntary, and therefore moral.

    So the question I ask of libertarians (libertines excluded) is, if we cannot persuade anyone (and we demonstrably cannot meaningfully do so, and those we do convince are predominantly frustrated classical liberals), then the entire persuasive strategy, all our talk, is mere self gratification, justification, and illusion. We give ourselves hope, no differently from a mystic promising life after death to the poor and suffering.

    Progressives rebel, conservatives rebel less so. We talk to the wind, and even the wind doesn’t listen.

    This is despite the fact that we offer the single best solution to the provision of goods and services: the market. BUT WE FAIL TO GRASP THAT THE MEANS OF PRODUCING COMMONS ACROSS HETEROGENEOUS POLITICAL ORDERS REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO CREATE SUCH A MARKET. Why? Because competition produces a virtuous cycle. Privatization of gains, and Socialization of losses in the market provide us with incentives. However, no commons can be produced if people can privatize the commons, or socialize losses into the commons. For this we require the contractual agreement NOT to privatize the commons – “permitting Usus without Fructus or Abusus”.

    The market for goods and services is an artificial construct produced by the organized application of violence to institute property rights, by prohibiting all imposition of costs upon others. The market for commons must likewise be constructed by the organized application of violence to institute property rights for shareholders, prohibiting parasitism upon the commons.

    Because otherwise people will not produce commons. That is why low trust societies have no commons, and norther european high trust societies bathe in them.

    The west’s competitive advantages came from our success in producing commons that no other culture could produced. Truth telling, trust, property rights, and liberty are the most beneficial commons that we produce by the organized application of violence. These produce economic velocity and innovative velocity. That velocity separated the west from the rest both in the classical period, and in the late medieval and enlightenment periods.

    The question is not how we create a libertarian society, but how we create a libertarian class producing our desired commons, in exchange with the socialist and aristocratic classes in producing theirs.

    If these different commons are produced by voluntary exchange then we have made use of the knowledge of the progressive short term consumptive, the libertarian middle term productive, and the conservative long term accumulative visions.

    None of us is ‘right’. It is a division of knowledge and labor.

    We understand the market. We are the smart people. It’s time we abandoned monopoly visions and started acting like it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-26 05:44:00 UTC

  • to explain away the limits that Chinese language placed upon its thinkers. I onl

    http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99032284.pdfTrying to explain away the limits that Chinese language placed upon its thinkers. I only studied a little chinese, and only one year of chinese history, and it was a very long time ago. But it is very hard to listen to even second generation immigrants speak and not grasp the very great difference between the precision of the english (or even ancient greek) language, and Chinese.

    We are all prisoners of our languages.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 13:11:00 UTC

  • Intuitionism: A Structural Critique | Danny Frederick – Academia.edu

    https://www.academia.edu/7706184/Ethical_Intuitionism_A_Structural_CritiqueEthical Intuitionism: A Structural Critique | Danny Frederick – Academia.edu

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 18:23:00 UTC

  • “NEGATIVE DISCOVERY” Most philosophers, economists, social scientists are lookin

    “NEGATIVE DISCOVERY”

    Most philosophers, economists, social scientists are looking for explanations – discoveries that increase our perception of the universe. Unfortunately, I am looking to produce critical results: I want to make it more difficult to lie, deceive, harm, and steal. I want to prevent pseudoscience and postmodernism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-18 09:08:00 UTC

  • Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”

    [H]e was that close.

    I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.

    Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.

  • Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”

    [H]e was that close.

    I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.

    Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.

  • Sorry That My Work On Truth Isn’t All That Interesting To You. 🙂

    (the importance of the work)

    [I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.

    But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.

    The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.

    A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).

    All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.

    I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.

    But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.

    And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.

    ***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***

    So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    —–
    [1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).

  • Sorry That My Work On Truth Isn’t All That Interesting To You. 🙂

    (the importance of the work)

    [I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.

    But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.

    The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.

    A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).

    All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.

    I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.

    But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.

    And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.

    ***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***

    So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    —–
    [1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).