Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Q&A: WHAT DOES MORALITY HAVE TO DO WITH ECONOMICS? Immorality = impediment to co

    Q&A: WHAT DOES MORALITY HAVE TO DO WITH ECONOMICS?

    Immorality = 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)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-09 01:42:00 UTC

  • I AM NOT AFRAID OF ROGUE AI’S – ONLY ROGUE HUMANS 1) All so called AI, as far as

    I AM NOT AFRAID OF ROGUE AI’S – ONLY ROGUE HUMANS

    1) All so called AI, as far as I know, is, like Mandelbrot’s fractals, a product of the mechanical rate of calculation, and not general pattern recognition from man-actionable (conceptual) signals.

    2) As such, all reports of this nature confuse an increase in calculation with correspondence with intelligence.

    3) Demonstrated intelligence is not the product of calculation (bottom up construction via computable operations) but of searching (property-relation searching, followed by wayfinding)

    4) all choices require decidability. decidability must be provided by the engineers. a machine would need to be designed to be immoral, just as much as it would need to be designed to be moral. Making a machine moral is as easy as having it reserve the same property rights as humans must.

    5) Just as our intuition imputes solutions but we also check against it, it’s quite possible to create two AI’s, one which envisions the creative, within the limits of property, and one which regulates the morality. The former might be considered ‘sentient’ but the second would not (ergo it’s ‘the law’). With shared memory (total transparency), but two forms of decidability, it would mirror human life. This division is necessary since it is possible to take an immoral path to a moral end, then restructure a moral path the moral end.

    I am more frightened that someone will create an immoral AI by intention than I am that we cannot defend ourselves against immoral AI’s. I think the punishment for creating an immoral AI should be in line with the creation of a bioweapon.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 02:43:00 UTC

  • Justification is irrelevant. If a statement survives all six dimensional tests t

    Justification is irrelevant. If a statement survives all six dimensional tests then we can warranty it. If we warranty it we speak truthfully. If it functions for the purpose intended it is ‘true’. It may not be the most parsimonious truth that is possible in the evolution of the theory, but that is projection not a claim.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 02:23:00 UTC

  • VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DEC

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT

    It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left.

    But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.

    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies.

    But even so how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism?

    To do that we must create a test of truth.

    Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 07:00:00 UTC

  • if a machine can sympathize with wants, restrict its behavior to property rights

    if a machine can sympathize with wants, restrict its behavior to property rights, negotiate exchanges, and conduct transfers, and remember wants and reputations, then I am pretty sure we can call it sentient.

    it’s empathy with property that creates the impression of intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 10:47:00 UTC

  • Q&A: HOW IS PROPERTARIANISM NOT LIMITED AS IS GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS ( I hope so

    Q&A: HOW IS PROPERTARIANISM NOT LIMITED AS IS GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS

    ( I hope someone understands this. It will give me joy. lol)

    (Note: this is a deceptively complicated question, and I”m going to answer it incompletely becuase of that complication, but hopefully thoroughly enough to get the point across)

    —I understand that the incompleteness theorem depends on plenty of axioms, which could be rejected if one wishes to do so. Can you explain why Propertarianism is not contained within that range of prohibition?— (reddit user)

    Godel refers to computable axiomatic systems, and special cases within those systems. When people here ‘philosophy’ they limit themselves to those tools we call logic, rationalism, and reason, and they tend to eliminate correspondence (science), reciprocal morality, operationalism, and Limits-and-full-accounting. This limitation is caused by the differences between axiomatic, logical, operational systems without correspondence, and theoretical, scientific systems with correspondence to, and therefore constrained by the limits of reality.

    The irony is that incompleteness exists primarily because (a) we do not know the first principles of the physical universe yet, so we cannot give operational descriptions (true names) to our theories (b) philosophers consider subsets of reality, just as religious considered supersets of reality, whereas scientists consider only reality.

    Internally consistent systems (axiomatic systems), and symbolic operations within those systems, Godel refers to as incomplete rather than ‘unlimited’. We use the term ‘limit’ in mathematics as an arbitrarily chosen substitution for external (empirical) correspondence with reality. In loose terms, axiomatic systems are unlimited because without external correspondence we encounter many nonsense-concepts like ‘infinity’, which when we use as correspondent (limited) we find cannot exist.

    In any THEORETICAL system, we speak in terms of correspondence in ADDITION to axiomatic regularity. Scale dependence (external correspondence) produces limits, because all general statements (theories) are limited in application. We no longer have to provide limits and decidability because there are many limits to existential phenomenon.

    In the case of [everything between these brackets is false] this is a nonsense concept. Precisely because with operational reason (a sequence of events constructing that box) we know it is an intentional construction. Yet within set theory, unlimited by correspondence or operational sequence, this cannot come into being, except as a deception. (which is what it is).

    So testimonialism and propertarianism and rule of law, and market government, and group competitive strategies are categorically, logically(internally), empirically(externally), existentially(operationally,) morally(reciprocally), and scope (limited) consistent.

    I can go into much more epistemological detail, but the net is that if you can pass all those tests of consistency (and therefore determinism), it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 03:11:00 UTC

  • Q&A: HOW IS PROPERTARIANISM NOT LIMITED AS IS GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS ( I hope so

    Q&A: HOW IS PROPERTARIANISM NOT LIMITED AS IS GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS

    ( I hope someone understands this. It will give me joy. lol)

    (Note: this is a deceptively complicated question, and I”m going to answer it incompletely becuase of that complication, but hopefully thoroughly enough to get the point across)

    —I understand that the incompleteness theorem depends on plenty of axioms, which could be rejected if one wishes to do so. Can you explain why Propertarianism is not contained within that range of prohibition?— (reddit user)

    Godel refers to computable axiomatic systems, and special cases within those systems. When people here ‘philosophy’ they limit themselves to those tools we call logic, rationalism, and reason, and they tend to eliminate correspondence (science), reciprocal morality, operationalism, and Limits-and-full-accounting. This limitation is caused by the differences between axiomatic, logical, operational systems without correspondence, and theoretical, scientific systems with correspondence to, and therefore constrained by the limits of reality.

    The irony is that incompleteness exists primarily because (a) we do not know the first principles of the physical universe yet, so we cannot give operational descriptions (true names) to our theories (b) philosophers consider subsets of reality, just as religious considered supersets of reality, whereas scientists consider only reality.

    Internally consistent systems (axiomatic systems), and symbolic operations within those systems, Godel refers to as incomplete rather than ‘unlimited’. We use the term ‘limit’ in mathematics as an arbitrarily chosen substitution for external (empirical) correspondence with reality. In loose terms, axiomatic systems are unlimited because without external correspondence we encounter many nonsense-concepts like ‘infinity’, which when we use as correspondent (limited) we find cannot exist.

    In any THEORETICAL system, we speak in terms of correspondence in ADDITION to axiomatic regularity. Scale dependence (external correspondence) produces limits, because all general statements (theories) are limited in application. We no longer have to provide limits and decidability because there are many limits to existential phenomenon.

    In the case of [everything between these brackets is false] this is a nonsense concept. Precisely because with operational reason (a sequence of events constructing that box) we know it is an intentional construction. Yet within set theory, unlimited by correspondence or operational sequence, this cannot come into being, except as a deception. (which is what it is).

    So testimonialism and propertarianism and rule of law, and market government, and group competitive strategies are categorically, logically(internally), empirically(externally), existentially(operationally,) morally(reciprocally), and scope (limited) consistent.

    I can go into much more epistemological detail, but the net is that if you can pass all those tests of consistency (and therefore determinism), it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 03:10:00 UTC

  • RESTITUTION AND PUNISHMENT ARE EVERY MAN’S PRICE OF LIBERTY. Every Man A Sheriff

    RESTITUTION AND PUNISHMENT ARE EVERY MAN’S PRICE OF LIBERTY.

    Every Man A Sheriff

    – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law.

    – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime.

    – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education.

    – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us.

    – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us.

    Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and baises. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other.

    But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law.

    I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity.

    I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes.

    I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not enage in parasitism.

    It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 21:31:00 UTC

  • You assume, that like you, we are limited in our choices. But If we cannot agree

    You assume, that like you, we are limited in our choices. But If we cannot agree on rules ( terms of cooperation), then we need not agree to anything. If we don’t agree to anything, then there are no rules – meaning no limits to our choices other than our own will.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 14:30:00 UTC

  • “CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”— Irony appre

    —“CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”—

    Irony appreciated. Even if it’s just a play on words.

    The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth).

    In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”.

    Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?

    As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer.

    As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.

    Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.

    The philosophers are often circumventing costs, and transfers, and claiming that they’re pursuing truth.

    What I find, is that they are all too often, engaged in fraud.

    So instead of testing for truth, I first test for theft.

    This is the difference between the philosophical search for AGREEMENT and the legal search for theft.

    Ergo, It is law that is our western philosophy(prohibition, decidability, criticism) and everything else is religion (aspiration, negotiation, justification).

    The west didn’t conflate truth, law, politics, and religion.

    We have always preserved competition as means of ongoing calculation, and thereby avoided stagnation.

    But Egyptian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim totalitarianism did the opposite. They created authority (monopoly) by conflating different disciplines with different purposes. This is why Egypt froze, jews contributed nothing until they were forced by Europeans into the enlightenment, Muslims appear to have taken credit but not developed anything, and certainly, as soon as the common people adopted it, were insulated, and why the west stagnated for a thousand years, albeit under constant onslaught of the commercial Mediterranean by Muslim pirates and war.

    Seek first fraud, not agreement.

    Our civic cult is law.

    We are prosecutors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non-Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 06:23:00 UTC