Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • The USA no longer has the financial means of by which to influence the expansion

    The USA no longer has the financial means of by which to influence the expansion of human (property) rights. The USA no longer has the means of using economic and trade incentives to advance human (property) rights. The USA no longer has diplomatic means of providing incentives to advance human (property) rights. The USA has demonstrated that they cannot use force to advance human (property) rights.

    The Russians broke the postwar peace when they invaded ukraine. The muslims have broken the peace of westphalia by sponsoring and using non-state actors across borders. The world will not tolerate iran as the nuclear core state of islam. Turkey would be tolerated but has been engaged in recidivism. And western hopes that islamic nations would be able to evolve to modern states has been abandoned.

    China now leads the world in diplomacy, credit, and trade policy, and both russian and chinese powers favor the preservation of totalitarian governments precisely for this reason: they already must confront demographically problematic underclasses at great scale on a daily basis.

    Furthermore, the world has observed that while the market economy is the only possible means of providing prosperity, that the totalitarian state is better suited to do so until well after a middle class has reached majority status. In other words, democracy is seen as a luxury good unique to western civilization.

    Reading philosophy is like reading fantasy literature. Adults read military, economic, and demographic data, and seek to understand rational incentives.

    So no, the USA will remain an major influence upon world affairs trough at least the first half of this century, provided the USA does not balkanize as I suspect it will. At which point the worldwide attempt to fill the power vacuum will likely lead to the first great wars of the 21st century.

    It’s economics and demographics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 08:06:00 UTC

  • Computational Linguistics: What Distinguishes Subjective (held In The Mind) From Objective (testable)?

    I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can.

    Subjectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience.

    Subjectively experienced:
    – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable)
    – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable)
    – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable)
    – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable)
    – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable)
    – no, that’s not believable. (reportable).

    Objectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical.

    Objectively experienced:
    – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions)
    – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions)
    – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions)
    – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions)
    – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions)
    – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions).

    Neither Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable:

    – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number.
    – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions.
    – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary).

    SCIENCE AND THE WEST
    The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be.

    The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good.

    This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it.

    What we intuit is often not a good thing.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Computational-Linguistics-What-distinguishes-subjective-held-in-the-mind-from-objective-testable

  • SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that

    SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY

    One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with.

    But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate.

    This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them.

    We have had our rights for thousands of years.

    It took those thousands of years to preserve them.

    It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution.

    And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one.

    So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-03 08:10:00 UTC

  • Our constitution was an imperfect attempt at natural law. Our next must correct

    Our constitution was an imperfect attempt at natural law. Our next must correct its failings. NO MORE DISCRETIONARY RULE.

    —“The Underlying assumption seems to be that judgement can be codified better than it can be utilised. Not sure this is the case.”—

    Like science, Via-Negativa can be Codified. Via-Positiva cannot be. So Anything not bad may yet be good.

    Natural Law is Negative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 21:06:00 UTC

  • ***It is not my job to educate, but to prosecute. I have succeeded in my prosecu

    ***It is not my job to educate, but to prosecute. I have succeeded in my prosecution. …. If you need instruction you can ask. Had you asked for instruction we would not have prosecuted you. It is only by your arrogance that you required prosecution.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 18:54:00 UTC

  • VIRTUOUS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IS DETERMINED BY COST (full argument)(read it and

    VIRTUOUS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IS DETERMINED BY COST

    (full argument)(read it and weep. lol)

    —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”—

    Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion.

    1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities.

    a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral)

    or

    b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral)

    OR

    2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities.

    a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous)

    or

    b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral)

    1………..DV……I

    2………..CV……E

    Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not.

    3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge,

    I have the choice of:

    Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical)

    OR

    I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical)

    OR

    I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical)

    So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES.

    1……E……U

    2……FE….U

    So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical.

    You see?

    The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical.

    See?

    It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically.

    QED

    Thus Endeth The Lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 16:14:00 UTC

  • MEN WITHOUT AGENCY? A woman must have a man she can respect and a man without ag

    MEN WITHOUT AGENCY?

    A woman must have a man she can respect and a man without agency is very difficult to respect.

    —“Can a woman get a man (smart man) to open his eyes to this?”—

    Men freeze at 16 and just lose energy but their personalities never change. women change pretty dramatically over about every seven years.

    —“I hate your truths (sometimes)”—

    Yeah. I had to get over it myself…… Not sure I really have.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 18:44:00 UTC

  • WOMEN AND GENGHIS KHAN We do not stop Genghis Khan from his parasitism by moral

    WOMEN AND GENGHIS KHAN

    We do not stop Genghis Khan from his parasitism by moral demand, but by eliminating his ability to conduct parasitism. We do not stop women from their natural preening, consumption, nesting, parasitism, currying favor and status through redistribution, and undermining the power structure by engaging them in moral argument. They lack the agency to do so.

    You simply create institutions that prohibit them from parasitism, currying favor and status through redistribution and undermining the power structure.

    You deny people opportunity for rational parasitism, you don’t convince them not to engage in it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 22:08:00 UTC

  • WOMEN AND THE FRANCHISE I take the opposite position: that we have merely given

    WOMEN AND THE FRANCHISE

    I take the opposite position: that we have merely given women the proxy of violence that we call government without providing the same disincentives to abusing it as women do, that we have created for men over thousands of years, as men do. Women do damage via different means than do men. Yet we did not limit their ability to do damage. So we can say our experiment in enfranchisement has failed, or we can improve our institutions such that the even more destructive intuitions of women cannot be let loose by the violence of government under the franchise.

    (Eli has me thinking about solutions rather than criticisms)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 22:02:00 UTC

  • Via negativa we construct the sovereignty of the aristocracy, the liberty of the

    Via negativa we construct the sovereignty of the aristocracy, the liberty of the burgher, the freedom of the craftsman, the subsidy of the mother.

    We eliminate the false and immoral and only the true and moral remain.

    It is by the decidable, non-discretionary, rule of judge discovered, natural, empirical, common law, that we incrementally discover means of parasitism that violate natural law, and then prohibit them, thereby informing others not to repeat those violations and insuring one another if they are repeated.

    We produce sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy through the incremental suppression of parasitism using the incremental discovery of applications of the one law of non-parasitism.

    We build a condition of liberty like a sculptor with his chisel removing stone to discover the figure beneath – not like an engineer who designs it or a clay or wax sculptor building it up in layers by design.

    In this way we do not require anyone to believe in the good, and they cannot disagree with the bad. This leaves us with no other choice for our survival than a market for ‘good’ actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 17:16:00 UTC