Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT (worth

    PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT

    (worth repeating)

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC

  • I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin. Some of u

    I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin.

    Some of us cooperate in society so that your family and my family can cooperate instead of conflict. But the purpose of my life, the purpose of my labor, the purpose of my production – my purpose, is for my family alone, and is not to support others, but to not to harm them while helping my family. Society is merely a utilitarian function that allows my family to prosper. The attempt to steal from me and my family for ‘society’ just means stealing from me to give to my genetic competitors.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 11:31:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSAL ANTI LIBERTINE ARGUMENT: (good) It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact: I am

    UNIVERSAL ANTI LIBERTINE ARGUMENT:

    (good)

    It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact: I am a libertarian, and you are a libertine trying to dress-up respectably in libertarian verbal costume. And just as stamping your products with a false weight and measure, or attempting to imitate another consumer brand, or giving an oath you have no intention of fulfilling, lying that you are a libertarian rather than a libertine is not a matter of debate. It us a matter of you lying, in order to avoid paying the high cost of ethical and moral behaviour so that you can export costs for the social order into others.

    In other words you are just trying to use a lot of excuses to skate on s debt.

    Libertines who claim they are libertarians are just debt evaders. Thieves. Liars. Fools.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 08:11:00 UTC

  • Citizens vs Shareholders

    —“Service guarantees citizenship. – This is why I served in the US military even though I wasn’t compelled to.”—David M.

    [S]o, for use by our Corporations we have created various forms of stock: including Controlling, Various Preferred, Common, Non-Voting, and Options. These different shares roughly reflect the different value that we bring to companies. Controlling is for management and founders, preferred for professional investors (board members), common for uninformed lenders (‘pseudo-investors’ via the stock market), and non-voting (options in the event of a sale) and options (bonuses) for employees.

    When we use the term ‘citizenship’ today it carries with it the current assumption that citizenship is at best equal to a common, non-voting, or option form of stock. When democratic indo europeans use that term, they mean it as a member that the corporation of the aristocracy or church has agreed to insure. In the pre-democratic era, Citizen refers to the heads of households, families or businesses, that have demonstrated investment in the corporation. In the greek era, that was less than 10% of the population (what we would consider the oligarchy (<1%) the nobility (1%), and the upper middle class (<10%)

    I don’t really agree with Mencius’ approach, but if you told me instead, that we voted for ‘motions’, (internal contracts between shareholders), that any voting shareholder could put forward a motion, that such motions were perishable (had to collect votes in a specific period of time), that all voting was conducted publicly, entirely transparently, and recorded in the public block chain; that each share granted an individual one vote, and that all individuals were prohibited from possession of more than one share, and that a majority or supermajority of **each** class of shares had approve any vote, then I think that is a successful means of running some sort of juridical democracy under nomocratic rule (rule of law).

    This approach, direct voting. does not eliminate public intellectuals, and their propensity to overload, lie, obscure, frame and load,  but it does eliminate politicians (agents) who are subject to opaque influences. If the normative and intellectual commons is as I have stated, property that the corporation agrees to defend, and all shareholders possess standing in court in suits concerning the commons, and that we require truthful speech in all matters of the commons, because we require warranty of products, services, and public speech, then public intellectuals can be independently regulated.

    Rather than classify individuals ‘as’ something or other, we can issue (and possibly limit) shares (block chain / public-ledger accounts). Shares can be earned (purchased) through demonstrated actions, but not purchased by any material exchange, not transferred, and not awarded, granted, given, for any other reason). If one has earned a higher status share, he must trade in any existing share to redeem the new one.

    Repeat felons for example, are effectively wards of the corporation, as are children, not shareholders. I suspect that the class of wards would be fairly large, the class of non voting shares – non-contributing people – fairly large, voting -contributing- fairly large, preferred services shares (care-taking), preferred production(professional, business, and industry), and preferred aristocracy (military, militia, law) fairly large. The most interesting problem is the judiciary, because the law has managed to create a secular ‘priesthood’ (cult) over time due to the very high investment costs in rituals, and to self- manage that cult. Which I find fascinating. And as long as one can preserve that cult via military service, indoctrination, truth-telling, and propertarian calculation, then I think it only requires a small number of people, all of whom have extraordinary interests in it, to preserve liberty.

    I will cover this idea in greater depth as we go along.

  • Citizens vs Shareholders

    —“Service guarantees citizenship. – This is why I served in the US military even though I wasn’t compelled to.”—David M.

    [S]o, for use by our Corporations we have created various forms of stock: including Controlling, Various Preferred, Common, Non-Voting, and Options. These different shares roughly reflect the different value that we bring to companies. Controlling is for management and founders, preferred for professional investors (board members), common for uninformed lenders (‘pseudo-investors’ via the stock market), and non-voting (options in the event of a sale) and options (bonuses) for employees.

    When we use the term ‘citizenship’ today it carries with it the current assumption that citizenship is at best equal to a common, non-voting, or option form of stock. When democratic indo europeans use that term, they mean it as a member that the corporation of the aristocracy or church has agreed to insure. In the pre-democratic era, Citizen refers to the heads of households, families or businesses, that have demonstrated investment in the corporation. In the greek era, that was less than 10% of the population (what we would consider the oligarchy (<1%) the nobility (1%), and the upper middle class (<10%)

    I don’t really agree with Mencius’ approach, but if you told me instead, that we voted for ‘motions’, (internal contracts between shareholders), that any voting shareholder could put forward a motion, that such motions were perishable (had to collect votes in a specific period of time), that all voting was conducted publicly, entirely transparently, and recorded in the public block chain; that each share granted an individual one vote, and that all individuals were prohibited from possession of more than one share, and that a majority or supermajority of **each** class of shares had approve any vote, then I think that is a successful means of running some sort of juridical democracy under nomocratic rule (rule of law).

    This approach, direct voting. does not eliminate public intellectuals, and their propensity to overload, lie, obscure, frame and load,  but it does eliminate politicians (agents) who are subject to opaque influences. If the normative and intellectual commons is as I have stated, property that the corporation agrees to defend, and all shareholders possess standing in court in suits concerning the commons, and that we require truthful speech in all matters of the commons, because we require warranty of products, services, and public speech, then public intellectuals can be independently regulated.

    Rather than classify individuals ‘as’ something or other, we can issue (and possibly limit) shares (block chain / public-ledger accounts). Shares can be earned (purchased) through demonstrated actions, but not purchased by any material exchange, not transferred, and not awarded, granted, given, for any other reason). If one has earned a higher status share, he must trade in any existing share to redeem the new one.

    Repeat felons for example, are effectively wards of the corporation, as are children, not shareholders. I suspect that the class of wards would be fairly large, the class of non voting shares – non-contributing people – fairly large, voting -contributing- fairly large, preferred services shares (care-taking), preferred production(professional, business, and industry), and preferred aristocracy (military, militia, law) fairly large. The most interesting problem is the judiciary, because the law has managed to create a secular ‘priesthood’ (cult) over time due to the very high investment costs in rituals, and to self- manage that cult. Which I find fascinating. And as long as one can preserve that cult via military service, indoctrination, truth-telling, and propertarian calculation, then I think it only requires a small number of people, all of whom have extraordinary interests in it, to preserve liberty.

    I will cover this idea in greater depth as we go along.

  • “Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “

    —“Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “—

    Words consist of names (extant observable), experiences (unobservable, extant), allegories(unobservable in-extant). Words can be used to convey truth, or meaning, or truth and meaning, or falsehood and meaning. If I speak in names, (operational descriptions are unique just as positional numbers are unique) then I can speak in names of extant entities. Otherwise nothing else is observable. It is very hard to err, lie, or add imaginary content.

    Conversely if I speak in analogies and allegories, I can convey meaning to those with asymmetric information (less), but I can also load and frame that meaning, and with effort, overload our reason (via suggestion). And if I speak in analogies I cannot make a truth claim. What I **CAN** do is first convey meaning by analogy, then restate the idea operationally, and convey truth. And this is, it turns out, the only honest way of conveying understanding truthfully.

    So, as an example of deception and error, your statement that I relied upon the category ‘words’ was dishonest, when my argument relied upon the category ‘analogies’.

    –“You deny that distinctly human minds have a logical structure.”–

    Well aside from the fact that ‘mind’ is the name of an experience that requires time to produce changes in state, and brain is the name of the extant organ, this is a very poor sentence, but I will try to repair it by restating it as: the acts of daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing demonstrate that humans are capable of the practice of logical argument. Therefore humans are capable of logical thought.

    Now, again, you have used fuzzy language to make a dishonest statement. Instead, what I have said is that the capacity of humans to perceive, remember, compare, and judge is extremely limited, and that we must rely upon instrumentation both logical and physical to assist us in all but the most trivial of comparisons. (I don’t know how it is possible to refute this.) I have furthermore stated that language, unless operationally articulated, is so imprecise that error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking and the addition of imaginary content, that reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth (stated in e-prime for that matter) is not only insufficient a technology for the prevention of error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking, and the addition of imaginary content, but that if we look at the evidence throughout history, the primary function of rationalism is to justify, deceive, frame, and overload, and that humans do not seem to be easily able to detect errors when communication takes place in this method.

    So your entire paragraph on rationalism is an example of how one can attempt to use reason to justify the black or white fallacy: that you levy an accusation of denying that the capacity to reason logically, exists, when I merely state that the capacity to reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth is extremely limited, (as evidenced by the failure of your own argument), and that is after accusing me of saying that reason cannot be used for honest discourse, rather than the fact that the vast majority of lies, deceptions and fallacies have been created using rationalism.

    —“But a method of doing the natural sciences is not the only logic that, in a pragmatic sense, has succeeded in helping humankind achieve progress. The logic of the classical economists has also succeeded. “—

    I stated that it is extremely hard to lie, cheat, steal, add imaginary content, frame, load, overload, and err, using the scientific method as constituted in empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth. But it is very easy to conduct a dishonest argument that postulates straw men, and black or white fallacies using rationalism.

    The data suggests that the only reason to rely upon rationalism is to lie. That is because most liars rely upon rationalism. The reason scientists rely upon the method (more accurately as empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth), is because it is harder to err, bias and lie. So if any given argument can be conducted both in the language of liars, and in in the language of truth tellers, then why would one defend use of the language of liars?

    The most troubling thing about rationalism, is that it does not help correct those people who are telling lies, but who are not desirous of lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 08:42:00 UTC

  • IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BIG BUSINESS? (The word ‘app

    http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appropriate-role-and-amount-of-government-regulation-of-businesses/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BIG BUSINESS?

    (The word ‘appropriate’ is a form of linguistic dishonesty that attempts to create a moral statement where none exists.)

    Instead, the question is whether a MONOPOLY (in this case, the government), that is insulated from prosecution under the law (bureaucrats), and insulated from market pressures (competition), is superior to a POLYPOLY, in which all members are subject to prosecution under the law (citizens) and subject to market pressures (competition).

    The general theory is that monopolies are necessary to START regulation (government), but that once instituted that competing institutions subject to rule of law are superior to democratic and political influences (politicians, corruption, oligarchies), because each individual everywhere in society, if he holds legal standing under universal standing, is capable of policing the regulators.

    The problem we have in government is that we cannot police the regulators ,and the implication that voting is a proxy for lawsuits is empirically false.

    As such, removal of corporate protections and extension of liability to all employees of all organizations, and the granting of universal standing, and the requirement that anyone we would consider needing regulation be insured, allows us to construct competing insurance companies that replace corrupt monopoly bureaucracies in government as means of regulation.

    SO it is not the degree of regulation that is the question, but whether regulation should be performed by monopolies or polypolies. And the answer is that most regulations must be legally imposed by the monopoly we call government, by requiring private insurance, and that the entire population is both responsible for and capable of policing those companies AND their insurers.

    It should be fairly obvious that POLOPOLY under NOMOCRACY is a superior means of regulation because it eliminates the possibility of corruption endemic to monopolies. And equally obvious that the market will seek the level of regulation necessary for insurers and producers to defend themselves from activist citizens intent on controlling them by limiting them moral actions.

    It is less obvious that it is government sanction of corruption and government delivery of regulation that is the cause of illicit business activity, precisely because during the early industrial revolution, governments who were envious of collecting new tax revenues granted protections to private businesses and removed the public’s common law ability to regulate such businesses.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 18:12:00 UTC

  • UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH : IT WASN”T PLATO – IT WAS GERMANS AND COSMOPOLITANS Questio

    UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH : IT WASN”T PLATO – IT WAS GERMANS AND COSMOPOLITANS

    Question: “Was Karl Popper right to blame Plato’s concept of the philosopher king for the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century?”

    Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute.

    No. Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions. His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists. Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion), and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god, to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment.

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability.

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum.

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans.

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority. These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use.

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:46:00 UTC

  • MUCH MORE CAPITALIST IS AMERICA THAN GERMANY *Capitalism: the voluntary organiza

    http://www.quora.com/How-much-more-capitalist-is-the-US-than-Germany/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1HOW MUCH MORE CAPITALIST IS AMERICA THAN GERMANY

    *Capitalism: the voluntary organization of consumer production. (Liberty)

    *Socialism: the involuntary organization of consumer production. (Totalitarianism)

    *Mixed Economy: the voluntary organization of consumer production, and the involuntary redistribution of the rewards earned by organizing consumer production. (A trade-off between liberty and totalitarianism).

    Socialism is impossible, since neither the incentives to produce, nor the means of economic calculation are possible. The only possible means of organizing production that produces surpluses is to provide both individual incentives and the means of rational calculation for pursuing those incentives.

    This means that the only possible means of organizing production that is adaptive to changes in the world (wants and scarcities) is capitalism. This is why the entire world has adopted capitalism (the voluntary organization of consumer production).

    However, the entire world has also adopted mixed economy consumer capitalism: that is, the authoritarian regulation and taking of the rewards from the voluntary organization of production, for the purpose of redistribution (By licit or illicit means, for licit or illicit purposes.)

    So the entire world practices capitalism and none of the world practices socialism. Instead, the whole world practices mixed economy capitalism by taking the maximum amount that they can extract from the organizers of production without disrupting the organization of production.

    Now, the difference between the USA and Germany is such:

    1) germans are less diverse (more homogeneous) and homogeneous societies (see scandinavia) are comfortable with redistribution (sacrifice of my family and children and subsequent generations) for the service of yours. However, diverse polities are not comfortable with sacrificing for their competitors, any more than germans are happy redistributing to Turks, or mediterranean cultures that are lazier and more corrupt. America by contrast has an old historical problem of diversity of many peoples, and self reliance. The more diverse a people the less tolerance for redistribution.

    2) America is not comparable to Germany per se, but to Europe in total. There are 50 American states, and no less than 9 or 10 american regional cultures, and just as brussels is perceived as a dictatorship the american government is perceived as a dictatorship by the central and southern peoples of the american continent, that works for the advantage of the high population centers of immigrants on the coastal areas.

    As such Germany is both more homogenous, smaller, and more likely to redistribute, (over the objections of the south), while America is larger, more diverse, and less willing to redistribute. The reason is that germans are not competitors for power with one another (mostly) but american regions are at war with one another using the government as a proxy.

    For these reasons Germany is less an advocate of a mixed economy than say California or New York, but more so than say Iowa, Georgia and Alaska.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:35:00 UTC

  • GETTING CLOSER TO CORRECTING THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS —“We can only know when

    GETTING CLOSER TO CORRECTING THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS

    —“We can only know when we speak falsehoods. We cannot know when we speak the truth. Therefore all we can ever do is testify truthfully. And we can only testify truthfully, even if we desire to, by operational description, because we ourselves are the victims of error, bias, wishful thinking, habit, and deception. So to speak truthfully is only possible if we limit ourselves to operational actions and measures. This does not convey ‘meaning’ which is what others often desire. We can either leave the derivation of meaning to others, or we can construct the meaning by way of analogy. The problem is, that when we construct an analogy, we must add information external to the facts. To convey meaning is not to convey the truth. One can convey meaning by analogy, but then one must provide operational descriptions in order to prove that one has not erred, biased, imagined, or lied. This argument, is the simplest reduction that I know of for the arguments of the intuitionists(mathematics), Operationists (psychology), and Operationalists (physics), and Praxeologists (economics). It is a moral restatement of the mathematical argument for the requirement of Reverse Russian Mathematics in order to make a truth claim. Speaking truthfully is merely a matter of whether we can testify to their existential possibility of their construction as well as the theory’s existential correspondence with demonstrable reality .”—

    I think that when I was arguing with critical rationalists earlier in the year, I could not distill this argument down this far. Neither Poppers ‘meaning’ nor David’s formal logic solve this problem. As such I stipulate that this is the correct solution to the critical rationalist problem, and that as Alex has argued, popper was a cosmopolitan, and he was a victim of the vast legacy of cosmopolitan errors. He was half right but he was not right enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 11:23:00 UTC