Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • The Fraud of Tolerance

    —Should we be tolerant? Should we tolerate intolerance? If we don’t, does that make us intolerant?—

    We can always justify truthful speech. Why and how can we justify tolerance of anything other than truthful speech? Why should we justify falsehood, libel, slander, and risk (yelling fire in a theater for example). So, why did the founders of the constitution, attempting to transform anglo empirical law into a formal logic of social science, state that freedom of speech was permissible instead of that freedom of truthful speech was permissible, and that punishment for use of false speech was permissible? (Jefferson’s ambition was brilliant but incomplete.) The problem we have faced through history, is that because our justificationary language was based upon the false application of internal axiomatic moral language, we confused moral and legal justification with theoretic and survivable truth. And only with contemporary science did we discover that we cannot justify theoretic argument no matter what we do – we can only perform due thorough due diligence against falsehood in theoretic systems, including all of ethics, economics, and politics. We have just endured a century of pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit, on a scale not seen since the use of writing and roads to spread the conflation of law and religion we call monotheism. And it has cost us as much damage as that last deceit caused the roman empire, and western civilization, and the dark ages that followed, and all the painful reformations that we have born: anglo, french, german, and Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and now Muslim. But why have we been so susceptible to the lies, deceits, pseudosciences, and falsehoods of the 19th and 20th centuries? (media scale vs pulpit and book, and town crier and parchment scale) And how can we perform due diligence and warranty against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE Now, we can’t possibly cover this subject in detail as an interjection, but these are the six tests, the first three which are familiar to scientists, and the last possibly so. 1 – categorical consistency (identity)(non-conflation) 2 – logical consistency (internal consistency)(non-contradictory) 3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)(repeatable) 4 – operational consistency (existential possibility)(possible) 5 – moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfers)(moral) 6 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) The first novel test is 4-Operational consistency, meaning that we write in the objective language of action, as do the physical scientists, so that each step we discuss is subjectively testable, and existentially possible, and does not conflate actor intent, observer interpretation, and subjective experience, but simply a record of the actions taken. (This technique can be found by researching e-prime.) The second novel test objective morality under which we require that all transfers consist of productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange limited to externalities of the same criteria. This is definition of natural law: the law of non-imposition of costs that would cause resentment or retaliation which would disincentivize the process of cooperation, and limit the disproportionate returns of cooperation. So now that we know how to demand the same warranty of truthfulness in speech that we do in advertising, marketing, production, distribution, and trade, why do we not demand implicitly warranty against harm, by the demand for due diligence in the qualification of political speech, just as we over the centuries have incrementally demanded due diligence and warranty of the fitness for service of goods, services, and all other products? The only reason to do so is to continue to allow deceit. Or to fail to pay the cost of suppressing falsehood out of convenience. Or worse, —“Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught Truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? To engage in human husbandry.”—David Mondrus We can all tolerate uncomfortable truths. That the universe doesn’t care about us has been one discomfort after another. But why must we tolerate falsehoods, frauds, and deceits, pseudorationalism (obscurantism), and pseudoscience (deception) when we know how to demand due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading ( including pseudoscience), and deceit? Why must we give voice to error bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? If so, why do products and services require regulation? Do we not live in an information economy now, where it is information that is our primary product and primary good of consumption? THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL Here is what I am certain of: that the same delta in human achievement that resulted from the greek development of reason, and the suppression of mysticism in the commons; and that same delta in human achievement that resulted from the English invention of empiricism, and the suppression of mysticism and rationalism in the commons, would be brought to mankind by the development of truthfulness as a suppression for error, propaganda, and deception in the commons. And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail. Because, each of these groups profits from their lies. The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been. Now, imagine all the books written today, how many are false? Sure, it is true, that we need a different book to discuss the same idea, for every ten points of intelligence, from about 140 on down. But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not? What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust? We must tolerate the truth, productive competition, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of reproduction we call the family, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade we call the market economy, and the vagaries of competition for the production of commons that we call government. But there is no reason we must tolerate preventable harm by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deception, any more than we have tolerated murder, violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conquest by conversion, conquest by immigration, and conquest by war. So no. Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exchange for false status signals, fraudulently obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits. The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of the West: Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.

    You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.

  • Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.

    You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.

  • Of Course Women are Underrepresented in History – Because We Remeber Extremes, Not Regularities

    (read for some good useful arguments) Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons: 1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity. 2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes. 3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire. 4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious. WOMEN IN THE FUTURE The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference. Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas. Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes. Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities. We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities. The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Of Course Women are Underrepresented in History – Because We Remeber Extremes, Not Regularities

    (read for some good useful arguments) Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons: 1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity. 2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes. 3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire. 4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious. WOMEN IN THE FUTURE The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference. Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas. Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes. Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities. We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities. The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • No. Morality Is Objective. It’s Just Proscriptive(negative) Not Prescriptive(positive).

    [W]e make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law. So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition. We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of. However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations. When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish. Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom. So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation. It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do. That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • No. Morality Is Objective. It’s Just Proscriptive(negative) Not Prescriptive(positive).

    [W]e make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law. So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition. We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of. However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations. When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish. Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom. So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation. It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do. That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&a: What Does Morality Have To Do With Economics?

    [I]mmorality = impediment to cooperation and incentive to retaliation and its consequence to the voluntary organization reproduction, of production of goods, services, commons, dispute resolution, and defense – vs it’s opposite. That which we defend (property) = that which we have expended our resources in order to obtain by homesteading, transformation(production), or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria. Property Rights = That scope of property which we reciprocally insure against the imposition of costs by others. Criminal = imposition of costs by direct physical means. Unethical = imposition of costs by interpersonal asymmetry of information. Immoral = imposition of costs indirectly extra-personal asymmetry of information. Macro interference does not consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer limited to externality of the same criteria. When we study Saltwater interference (discretionary Pareto maximums) we study the greatest immorality possible. (rule by discretion) When we study Freshwater macro we study rule of law (insured, systemic non-discretionary maximums). (rule of law) When we study Austrian economics (non-discretionary Nash maximums), we study the greatest morality possible. (social science) As in many things, the middle road appears to be the optimum possible. It permits planning but provides insurance against asymmetries in the system. Ergo: the question is a moral one: who has discretion to cause indirect involuntary transfers that we cannot plan for? Mises discovered operationalism in economics. Operationalism is a means of constructing proofs of possibility (falsification attempts / tests of existential possibility ). But economics, like any discipline, and all of epistemology, remains scientific in the sense that science refers to warranties of due diligence that our observations(facts) and hypotheses(guesses) are laundered of all humanly possible error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, and deceit. It does not matter if we discover a pattern in reality by free association(accident), by empirical observation(top down), or by operational construction (bottom up). To make a truth proposition we must ensure that our speech is free of error -> deceit by tests of: 1 – categorical consistency 2 – logical consistency 3 – empirical consistency 4 – operational consistency 5 – moral consistency (reciprocity) 6 – scope consistency (parsimony, limits and full accounting) Mises did discover that in economics or in explanation of any human action whatsoever, we can construct a proof (test of possibility) using operational language (existential consistency), of moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfer), just as Spencer had previously illustrated in all of human experience. But mises attempted (falsely) to conflate science (falsification/warranty) with logic (test of internal consistency) as instead of as tests of natural law: the necessity of voluntary exchange free of incentive for retaliation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: You would be far better served following me than rothbard or hoppe)

  • Q&a: What Does Morality Have To Do With Economics?

    [I]mmorality = impediment to cooperation and incentive to retaliation and its consequence to the voluntary organization reproduction, of production of goods, services, commons, dispute resolution, and defense – vs it’s opposite. That which we defend (property) = that which we have expended our resources in order to obtain by homesteading, transformation(production), or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria. Property Rights = That scope of property which we reciprocally insure against the imposition of costs by others. Criminal = imposition of costs by direct physical means. Unethical = imposition of costs by interpersonal asymmetry of information. Immoral = imposition of costs indirectly extra-personal asymmetry of information. Macro interference does not consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer limited to externality of the same criteria. When we study Saltwater interference (discretionary Pareto maximums) we study the greatest immorality possible. (rule by discretion) When we study Freshwater macro we study rule of law (insured, systemic non-discretionary maximums). (rule of law) When we study Austrian economics (non-discretionary Nash maximums), we study the greatest morality possible. (social science) As in many things, the middle road appears to be the optimum possible. It permits planning but provides insurance against asymmetries in the system. Ergo: the question is a moral one: who has discretion to cause indirect involuntary transfers that we cannot plan for? Mises discovered operationalism in economics. Operationalism is a means of constructing proofs of possibility (falsification attempts / tests of existential possibility ). But economics, like any discipline, and all of epistemology, remains scientific in the sense that science refers to warranties of due diligence that our observations(facts) and hypotheses(guesses) are laundered of all humanly possible error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, and deceit. It does not matter if we discover a pattern in reality by free association(accident), by empirical observation(top down), or by operational construction (bottom up). To make a truth proposition we must ensure that our speech is free of error -> deceit by tests of: 1 – categorical consistency 2 – logical consistency 3 – empirical consistency 4 – operational consistency 5 – moral consistency (reciprocity) 6 – scope consistency (parsimony, limits and full accounting) Mises did discover that in economics or in explanation of any human action whatsoever, we can construct a proof (test of possibility) using operational language (existential consistency), of moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfer), just as Spencer had previously illustrated in all of human experience. But mises attempted (falsely) to conflate science (falsification/warranty) with logic (test of internal consistency) as instead of as tests of natural law: the necessity of voluntary exchange free of incentive for retaliation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: You would be far better served following me than rothbard or hoppe)

  • NO. MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. IT’S JUST PROSCRIPTIVE(negative) NOT PRESCRIPTIVE(pos

    NO. MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. IT’S JUST PROSCRIPTIVE(negative) NOT PRESCRIPTIVE(positive).

    We make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law.

    So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition.

    We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of.

    However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations.

    When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish.

    Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom.

    So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation.

    It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do.

    That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 06:20:00 UTC