Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Is Keynsian Economics Better For America Than Austrian Economics?

    THIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US.

    1 – Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of knowledge so that people can cooperate voluntarily under the optimum possible conditions.  So as a movement, Austrian economics was a social science.  In other words, they want to improve our information.

    2 – American (Chicago) economics seeks to identify rule of law, so that economics can be constructed as a formula under rule of law – eliminating discretionary toying with the economy, just as rule of law eliminates discretionary toying with the polity.  In other words, they want to manipulate information as little as possible.


    3 – Saltwater (New York/California) economics seeks to identify the maximum disinformation that the government can insert into the economy with which to farm taxes, consume, and redistribute them, while preserving the incentive to keep working and risking capital (the hamster wheel), and to create sufficient knowledge of how to use disinformation that policy makers have full discretion.


    https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics

  • Is The United States A Rogue State?

    The problem with american policy is that it’s policy is utopian. 

    1. The postwar consensus was that states needed to focus internally on capitalism and human rights, and stay within their borders, so that we don’t have another civil war. Unfortunately americans promote democracy AND consumer capitalism instead of consumer capitalism regardless of political order.
    2. Democracy is a bad idea. Its not a cause of prosperity. It is a luxury good – a conspicuous consumption for wealthy societies, and creates chaos and suffering elsewhere.
    3. American postwar policy says ‘choose the government you want”.  what we don’t say is “but if you choose badly we will send you back to the stone age”.  Unfortunately, human instinct is parasitic: people choose badly.  Why? no enlightenment, no chivalry, no high trust, no prohibition on cousin marriage, and unfortunately, a full standard deviation in lower median IQ.
    4. People are not oppressed so much as parasites that need domestication.
    5. The west is better off than the rest not because of our virtues, but because for one thousand years we hung 1/2 to 1% of the underclass every year, controlled access to farm land, delayed childbirth, prohibited cousin marriage, and starved the rest.  SO most of the west is decendent from the middle class.  The rest of the world hasn’t done this (other than china and Japan) and so they are disproporionately impuslive, aggressive, and of lower intelligence than westerners.
    6. Europe failed in its colonial efforts to national detriments.  We have colonized Europe to its detriment.  Ottoman colonies are the source of world conflict.  The germans were probably right in the first world war, and we should have stayed out of it.  We tend to be wrong a lot. Other than the war on communism – we tend to be wrong a lot.

      Is that uncomfortable? It’s true.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United-States-a-Rogue-State

  • Is Donald Trump Doing A Good Job At Bringing Conservatives And Liberals Together?

    The country has been engaging in ‘the big sort’ for decades now. 
    The Republican party represents whites and married women.
    The Democratic party represents non-whites and unmarried women.

    All economics and politics are merely demographic: Race, Culture, Class, Age, and maritial status.   We blither a lot about politics under the assumption that people change. They don’t. 

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-doing-a-good-job-at-bringing-Conservatives-and-Liberals-together

  • Does China Actually Care About North Korea?

    China cares about damaging american power, maintaining the power of the party so that they can prevent the fragmentation of the Chinese (Han) Empire, and restoring her position as ‘center of the world’, in order to gain economic, political and military advantage.


    North Korea helps and hurts this strategy.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-China-actually-care-about-North-Korea

  • Would The Poor Have Better Standards Of Living In A Perfect Free Market Economy?

    A perfect free market economy is no more possible than a perfectly managed economy.   That is because people at a material disadvantage use collective bargaining (the government) to gain advantage.

    https://www.quora.com/Would-the-poor-have-better-standards-of-living-in-a-perfect-free-market-economy

  • How Can The Government Fix The Systematic Racism Problem In America?

    Stop forcing integration, restore voluntary disassociation, and provide separate houses of government for different races.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-government-fix-the-systematic-racism-problem-in-America

  • Sorry. The oath of allegiance needs updating. Take it, Live it. Leave, or die. –

    Sorry. The oath of allegiance needs updating. Take it, Live it. Leave, or die.

    —I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.—

    this doesn’t make you say what you most need to: I shall not steal.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 10:27:00 UTC

  • ON WOMEN VOTERS (from elsewhere) Only thing I tend to suggest is that women need

    ON WOMEN VOTERS

    (from elsewhere)

    Only thing I tend to suggest is that women need a separate house of government limited to short term decisions, and men to focus on the long term.

    This creates a market between the genders just as marriage and mating create a market between the genders.

    The problem with our government is that it was a market between men of different classes each who represented families and extended families and manors. It was an extension of the family.

    We violated the family by giving women power over the destruction of the family in favor of short term wants.

    No one is really at fault here. We just didn’t know and as westerners we were utopian in the first place, and secondly, we were wealthy from the new era of atlantic trade, and expanding colonies.

    Wealth makes us less risk averse. We needed to be more cautious.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 07:05:00 UTC

  • “Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”— Is it?

    –“Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”—

    Is it?

    Or is it the result of deception?

    Or is it the result of excuse making (rationalization)?

    Or is it the result of wishful thinking?

    Or is it the result of cognitive bias?

    Or is it the result of ignorance?

    Or is it the result of stupidity?

    Because it cannot be the result of informed and rational thinking since an observer of others, and an observer of the self, says that we and others retaliate for all impositions upon that which we have born costs to construct.

    And that the more complex our property, norms, and institutions, the less physical are our means of production, and more behavioral. And so the decreasingly physical are our means of accumulating property.

    This is why ratio-empirical ethics rather than rational ethics are necessary: to prevent deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Because when we deceive, justify, bias, preserve ignorance, and are outright stupid, we cannot trust our reason to produce correspondent theories of action.

    It is non-rational to ask others not to retaliate against your imposition of costs upon them regardless of whether physical, normative, or institutional. Therefore the NAP cannot be the result of rational thought. It can only be the result of deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    Now we can argue that a stupid person acts rationally, but we cannot argue that we construct a general rule of human action according to the limits of the stupid people’s minds. That is illogical, since a general rule for man is logically incompatible when suitable only for a subset of man.

    Ergo The NAP(IVP) is not rational, or the result of rational action, unless one conflates ‘reasoning’ with ‘reasonable’ with ‘rational’. One may say that it is reasonable for a person of limited intelligence and rather broad ignorance to reasonably conclude the NAP is sufficient but we cannot say his actions are rational, since that would require the he investigate the limits of his reason and test them against the evidence in reality.

    WORDS MATTER. Because fuzzy language provides the incompetent mind with venues for relying upon deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Hence why I am adamant about your misuse of language to justify your prior, rather than learning terminology that limits or eliminates your ability to justify your prior.

    THEREFORE

    0) The NA/Demonstrated-Property is sufficient for the determination of rational action because it eliminates demand for retaliation, and maximizes demand for cooperation.

    1) The NAP(IVP) is insufficient for the determination of rational action because it does not sufficiently limit demand for retaliation, and decreases the demand for cooperation (increasing transaction costs – and exporting them to the rest of the community.)

    2) The act of reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness are not equal to a conclusion that we call rational, nor to one that is ratio-scientific, nor to one that is warrantable as ratio-scientific-and-testimonial. It can only be the result of deceit, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    3) The NAP(IVP) then is not the result of rational thought but of either deceit, or justification, or a combination of wishful thinking and bias using only the process or reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness by the ignorant and stupid.

    4) Does any statement that the NAP(IVP) is the result of rational action would also mean that the NAP(IVP) is sufficient for rational action? Well if the NAP is not the result of rational analysis, nor is it sufficient for the determination of rational action, and at the same time one justifies the NAP as sufficient for rational action, then it’s either an error or a deception to state your original claim. Right. Ergo it is your failure to grasp all these consequences and the meaning of your own statement that leads to my criticism – just as I have said all along.

    REMAINING ISSUES

    The rest of your justification (argument) is made possible using various Errors by way of Egoistic Appeals to Intuitive Truth by misrepresenting the subjective as the objective. But I suspect I would need to delve into your use of the terms ‘fact” and “recognize” just as I have had to delve into your misuse of the term “rational”.

    The reason I believe you make this error, is that you are subconsciously conflating preference and subjective VALUE, with existence and objective TRUTH. Although I suspect I would also need to delve into that subject in order to explain it to you.

    So the net is that I believe you are an honest, but heavily cognitively biased person, punching far above your weight, because you lack the knowledge and skill to make the arguments that you proffer, and instead are merely justifying those biases and priors by searching for excuses to defend them using what amounts to pseudoscientific reasoning.

    This does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you were a successful host (useful idiot) for one of the great lies of the twentieth century. Better minds than yours were fooled. You should not feel bad. Only seek to learn why you err, and how to avoid that error in the future.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: This is how philosophy is done. I am very, very, very good at what I do, and I am keenly aware of it. People often mistake my sketches and brevity as the maximum capacity of my argumentative construction, but that is not the case. I cannot afford to produce every experiment in communication as a complete analytic argument, any more than a sculptor can produce every work in bronze, an architectural idea as finished building.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 06:28:00 UTC

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.