Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • SCIENCE WON. PHILOSOPHY IS DONE. I don’t really know anyone who writes philosoph

    SCIENCE WON. PHILOSOPHY IS DONE.

    I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true.

    Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact.

    —“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath

    My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods.

    As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth.

    The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel.

    Science won.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 22:37:00 UTC

  • Science Won. Philosophy Is Done.

    I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true. Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact. —“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods. As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth. The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel. 　 Science won.

  • –“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it.

  • “CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”—

    Very smart question.

    1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world)

    2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN.

    3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you.

    Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined.

    The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals.

    We just use a lot of words to deny it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 11:36:00 UTC

  • –“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it.

  • —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL 1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked). So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin. Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous). So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation. (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting. In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed. 2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-

    TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL

    1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).

    So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.

    Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).

    So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.

    (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.

    In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.

    2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 08:10:00 UTC

  • —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL 1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked). So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin. Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous). So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation. (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting. In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed. 2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • There Is No Defense To Claims That ‘It Wasn’t Real Communism’.

    My response would be the same scientific response that the entire empirical establishment settled by the 1960’s. 1. The organization of economic calculation necessary for complex multi-part networks of production is impossible without money and prices. Imputations cannot be made. However, assuming a people desired a minimum autarkic (insulated from external trade) static economy (and underclasses often do), then at least in theory, aside from adaptation to shocks, it might be possible, albeit the middle class would be very unlikely to develop, and a managerial and bureaucratic elite might be able to direct production, distribution, trade, and consumption. 2. Assuming the calculation of production was possible, we are stuck with the organization of people in the act of production, distribution, and transfer (trade). And people demonstrated universally, and continue to demonstrate universally, that they will both do the minimum possible, engage in false reporting, and engage in corruption and fraud to do the minimum possible, because they have no incentive to do otherwise. 3. Humans need to demonstrate status signals in order to obtain mates. Without access to markets of all kinds to do so, they do so by political, and black market means. Humans need new experiences. Black markets form and black markets compete with command driven production. 4. In every place it has been tried, the centralization can be used to rapidly advance a backward country without incurring external financial debt, but as a byproduct the people never develop the middle class of managers and resource calculators necessary to develop middle class norms, manners, ethics and morals. 5. The reverse solution has won out, which is to preserve status signaling, preserve markets, and produce common goods where markets fail. Poor people in america wear designer clothes cast off by the middle class in thrift stores for example. 6. The failure of the american model is due to heterogeneity since no people will permit the sacrifice of their own in order to let loose a political competitor. 7. The failure of the european model is the intertemporal version of the failure of communism: people reproduced insufficiently and engaged in work lives insufficiently to perpetuate the one-generation of benefits of redistribution under american protection that obviated their spending on defense. 8. There is no difference between communism, socialism, and social democracy except the time for to accumulate consequences. Or as others have said, any kind of democracy is just the slow road to communism – and the deterministic outcome of communism: suicide. 9. The abrahamic deception (pseudoscientific religion) of the ancient world killed something on the order of 500M people – mostly due to the Arabs – and destroyed four great civilizations of profound achievement and duration – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age. The second Abrahamic deception of Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools, has killed no less than 100M, so far, and set large parts of the globe back a century. The chinese were the smartest and walled off the barbarian peoples. The romans began the project but were overwhelmed, and cold not complete it. Had we walled off europe from the urals to the bosphorus we might have saved ourselves from the Abrahamic Dark Age. However, due to northern european persistence and isolation it was possible to restore western civilization and climb out of the Abrahamic Dark Age via empiricism, and eventually science, technology, accounting, contract, and the western natural law of torts. 10. Europeans have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and tyranny by one means: markets. Why? Because european civilization is predicated upon sovereignty and non-submission. An as such the only means of cooperation is via market competition. And markets calculate what men cannot through that continuous process of trial and error we call ‘innovation’. Marxism was and always will be a pseudoscience. Marxist ‘economics’ and history, Boazian athropology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian sets, and Frankfurt school aesthetics, were all pseudoscientific at best, and outright lies at worst. Just as the Abrahamic Pilpul that they originated from:the invention of the industrialization of lying. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • THERE IS NO DEFENSE TO CLAIMS THAT ‘IT WASN’T REAL COMMUNISM’. My response would

    THERE IS NO DEFENSE TO CLAIMS THAT ‘IT WASN’T REAL COMMUNISM’.

    My response would be the same scientific response that the entire empirical establishment settled by the 1960’s.

    1. The organization of economic calculation necessary for complex multi-part networks of production is impossible without money and prices. Imputations cannot be made. However, assuming a people desired a minimum autarkic (insulated from external trade) static economy (and underclasses often do), then at least in theory, aside from adaptation to shocks, it might be possible, albeit the middle class would be very unlikely to develop, and a managerial and bureaucratic elite might be able to direct production, distribution, trade, and consumption.

    2. Assuming the calculation of production was possible, we are stuck with the organization of people in the act of production, distribution, and transfer (trade). And people demonstrated universally, and continue to demonstrate universally, that they will both do the minimum possible, engage in false reporting, and engage in corruption and fraud to do the minimum possible, because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

    3. Humans need to demonstrate status signals in order to obtain mates. Without access to markets of all kinds to do so, they do so by political, and black market means. Humans need new experiences. Black markets form and black markets compete with command driven production.

    4. In every place it has been tried, the centralization can be used to rapidly advance a backward country without incurring external financial debt, but as a byproduct the people never develop the middle class of managers and resource calculators necessary to develop middle class norms, manners, ethics and morals.

    5. The reverse solution has won out, which is to preserve status signaling, preserve markets, and produce common goods where markets fail. Poor people in america wear designer clothes cast off by the middle class in thrift stores for example.

    6. The failure of the american model is due to heterogeneity since no people will permit the sacrifice of their own in order to let loose a political competitor.

    7. The failure of the european model is the intertemporal version of the failure of communism: people reproduced insufficiently and engaged in work lives insufficiently to perpetuate the one-generation of benefits of redistribution under american protection that obviated their spending on defense.

    8. There is no difference between communism, socialism, and social democracy except the time for to accumulate consequences. Or as others have said, any kind of democracy is just the slow road to communism – and the deterministic outcome of communism: suicide.

    9. The abrahamic deception (pseudoscientific religion) of the ancient world killed something on the order of 500M people – mostly due to the Arabs – and destroyed four great civilizations of profound achievement and duration – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age. The second Abrahamic deception of Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools, has killed no less than 100M, so far, and set large parts of the globe back a century. The chinese were the smartest and walled off the barbarian peoples. The romans began the project but were overwhelmed, and cold not complete it. Had we walled off europe from the urals to the bosphorus we might have saved ourselves from the Abrahamic Dark Age. However, due to northern european persistence and isolation it was possible to restore western civilization and climb out of the Abrahamic Dark Age via empiricism, and eventually science, technology, accounting, contract, and the western natural law of torts.

    10. Europeans have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and tyranny by one means: markets. Why? Because european civilization is predicated upon sovereignty and non-submission. An as such the only means of cooperation is via market competition. And markets calculate what men cannot through that continuous process of trial and error we call ‘innovation’.

    Marxism was and always will be a pseudoscience. Marxist ‘economics’ and history, Boazian athropology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian sets, and Frankfurt school aesthetics, were all pseudoscientific at best, and outright lies at worst. Just as the Abrahamic Pilpul that they originated from:the invention of the industrialization of lying.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 07:51:00 UTC