Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, h

    Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, he just criticizes everything. Why?Because nothing he wants is possible, and if stated positively we’d walk away shaking our heads. But Both of them are Plato’s children and a conversation interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:20:00 UTC

  • Hayek Vs Mises (Responding To Bob Murphy)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital. 2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible. 3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost. 4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done. 5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence. 6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity. 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason. Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity. 8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response. You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

  • HAYEK VS MISES (RESPONDING TO BOB MURPHY) 1- Mises always and everywhere only ad

    HAYEK VS MISES (RESPONDING TO BOB MURPHY)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital.

    2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible.

    3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost.

    4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done.

    5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence.

    6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity.

    7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason.

    Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity.

    8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response.

    You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property

    Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 20:55:00 UTC

  • Hayek Vs Mises (Responding To Bob Murphy)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital. 2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible. 3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost. 4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done. 5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence. 6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity. 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason. Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity. 8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response. You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

  • KILL ALL THE PSEUDOSCIENTISTS, AND PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS? 😉 The philosophy

    KILL ALL THE PSEUDOSCIENTISTS, AND PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS? 😉

    The philosophy of Marx, Lenin, and Mao (version two) cost >100M lives and the World wars, as well as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (version one) cost > 500M lives (islam), the destruction of the four great civilizations of the ancient world(islam), and a 1500 year dark age (christianity and islam).

    And that’s before we even start thinking about all the others. The damage Kant did alone to german thought (Rousseau > Kant > Continental Philosophy > Marxism > Postmodernism) is certainly as damaging as version one (judaism, christianity, islam).

    Why are the idealists, utopians, and theologians all writers who cause deaths by the excitement to suicide of millions?

    Philosophy in its forms of pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and occult, has done more damage than anything other than malaria, smallpox, and the great plagues.

    I mean, by this measure, we should kill everyone who speaks in fictionalisms: pseudoscience, rationalism, utopianism, supernaturalism.

    It might be the single best improvement in mankind since the invention of antibiotics.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 13:40:00 UTC

  • Kill All The Pseudoscientists, And Philosophers, Theologians? 😉

    The philosophy of Marx, Lenin, and Mao (version two) cost >100M lives and the World wars, as well as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (version one) cost > 500M lives (islam), the destruction of the four great civilizations of the ancient world(islam), and a 1500 year dark age (christianity and islam). And that’s before we even start thinking about all the others. The damage Kant did alone to german thought (Rousseau > Kant > Continental Philosophy > Marxism > Postmodernism) is certainly as damaging as version one (judaism, christianity, islam). Why are the idealists, utopians, and theologians all writers who cause deaths by the excitement to suicide of millions? Philosophy in its forms of pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and occult, has done more damage than anything other than malaria, smallpox, and the great plagues. I mean, by this measure, we should kill everyone who speaks in fictionalisms: pseudoscience, rationalism, utopianism, supernaturalism. It might be the single best improvement in mankind since the invention of antibiotics.

  • Kill All The Pseudoscientists, And Philosophers, Theologians? 😉

    The philosophy of Marx, Lenin, and Mao (version two) cost >100M lives and the World wars, as well as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (version one) cost > 500M lives (islam), the destruction of the four great civilizations of the ancient world(islam), and a 1500 year dark age (christianity and islam). And that’s before we even start thinking about all the others. The damage Kant did alone to german thought (Rousseau > Kant > Continental Philosophy > Marxism > Postmodernism) is certainly as damaging as version one (judaism, christianity, islam). Why are the idealists, utopians, and theologians all writers who cause deaths by the excitement to suicide of millions? Philosophy in its forms of pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and occult, has done more damage than anything other than malaria, smallpox, and the great plagues. I mean, by this measure, we should kill everyone who speaks in fictionalisms: pseudoscience, rationalism, utopianism, supernaturalism. It might be the single best improvement in mankind since the invention of antibiotics.

  • ¿A que nos referimos cuando decimos “ética de guetos”?

    La ética del gueto rothbardiana es la ética de un gueto urbano medieval. No es más ni menos que eso Los residentes de un “estado dentro de un estado” pueden conducir intercambios como si fueran actores estatales al respaldarse y apalancarse sobre intercambios y transacciones de alta confianza intra-grupos, toda vez que usan intercambios y transacciones de baja confianza ex-grupo (fuera del grupo). Sin embargo, en cualquier estado, cada uno de nosotros no puede actuar como un “estado” al aplicar la baja confianza con unos y relaciones de alta confianza con otros porque el resultado neto es una sociedad de baja confianza con altísimos incentivos para robar para la gran mayoría. En tales ambientes, la demanda que hay para la existencia del estado y que este intervenga como ente que resuelva disputas entre miembros de la sociedad como sustituto permanece alta, ya que la baja confianza es el uso de la astucia y el engaño para obtener descuentos y primas en las que una de las partes involucradas en el intercambio/transacción no toleraría de forma voluntaria. Dicho de otra forma, la ética de la baja confianza es parasitaria, e impone altos costos de transacción sobre la población. A lo que voy con esto es lo absurdo de usar un modelo de un estado dentro de un estado para abogar por una sociedad en la que el estado no existe. En esa óptica, todo la tesis Rothbardiana es ridículamente ilógica. La aristocracia suprime todas las formas en las que se puede hacer trampa de modo tal que la demanda para la existencia del estado sea baja porque los costos de las transacciones y los conflictos que puedan surgir de estas son minimizados toda vez que la velocidad en la que la producción se da y el intercambio que ésta genera es alto.

  • ¿A que nos referimos cuando decimos “ética de guetos”?

    La ética del gueto rothbardiana es la ética de un gueto urbano medieval. No es más ni menos que eso Los residentes de un “estado dentro de un estado” pueden conducir intercambios como si fueran actores estatales al respaldarse y apalancarse sobre intercambios y transacciones de alta confianza intra-grupos, toda vez que usan intercambios y transacciones de baja confianza ex-grupo (fuera del grupo). Sin embargo, en cualquier estado, cada uno de nosotros no puede actuar como un “estado” al aplicar la baja confianza con unos y relaciones de alta confianza con otros porque el resultado neto es una sociedad de baja confianza con altísimos incentivos para robar para la gran mayoría. En tales ambientes, la demanda que hay para la existencia del estado y que este intervenga como ente que resuelva disputas entre miembros de la sociedad como sustituto permanece alta, ya que la baja confianza es el uso de la astucia y el engaño para obtener descuentos y primas en las que una de las partes involucradas en el intercambio/transacción no toleraría de forma voluntaria. Dicho de otra forma, la ética de la baja confianza es parasitaria, e impone altos costos de transacción sobre la población. A lo que voy con esto es lo absurdo de usar un modelo de un estado dentro de un estado para abogar por una sociedad en la que el estado no existe. En esa óptica, todo la tesis Rothbardiana es ridículamente ilógica. La aristocracia suprime todas las formas en las que se puede hacer trampa de modo tal que la demanda para la existencia del estado sea baja porque los costos de las transacciones y los conflictos que puedan surgir de estas son minimizados toda vez que la velocidad en la que la producción se da y el intercambio que ésta genera es alto.

  • No. We Make No Apologies For Disruption Of Your Status Quo’s

    —‘talents’ being the will to take others property, land and commit genocide?”— Kool Akiem (Regarding: “europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy and no one else did.”) REPLY Talents meaning personality traits including intelligence, and in particular verbal intelligence, but even more so on general pedomorphcih and neotonic prolongation of traits. I am terribly proud of dragging humanity out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering and disease even if they resisted us all the way, and succeeded in defeating us by the great lies of the Abrahamic Dark Age. And even if they are resisting us today in the beginning of the second abrahamic (pseudoscientific) dark age by exactly the same means. I am terribly proud of replacing the undomesticated animal, and domesticating the human animals that remain. You are not kin, friend, productive cooperator, political cooperator, or military cooperator and I would prefer to continue speciating and leaving peoples like you behind as we have done so for millennia. If we cannot cooperate on ends, that is fine, as long as we can cooperate on means. If we cannot cooperate on means, then you are either unimportant, a competitor for resources, a parasite, or an enemy. There is no family of man except in the mind of parasites. I mean, the greatest murderers in the world are the islamists (500M dead, and the Socialist/Communists 100M dead) yet we have dragged mankind out of ignorance in the ancient and modern world, with the only interruption being the abrahamic dark age imposed upon europe by eastern emperors followed by muslim pirates and raiders. I mean, we destroyed south american civilizations nearly by accident. In the modern world we ahve tried desperately to turn primitive semi domesticated animals into fully human participants in the market order. And had the british not fallen to immoral influence under Disraeli, they might have completed the task by administration rather than leaving it to americans to force others to do at the point of high powered weapons. The muslims destroyed every major civilization in the ancient world, and the soviets cost eastern europe two hundred years. The east and southeast asians killed so many of their own people that only the muslims and the great plagues compare. Your anxiety is that you have very low sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, and as such you rail against a world you are unfit for. It is understandable that you should rail against a sexual,s ocial, economic, political and military order that forces you to confront your low market value to others. However, It is in the interests of all mankind past and present that if you lack sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, that you disappear from the gene pool so that you do not force others to pay the cost of your inadequacy. We all fear being left behind. I wish I was tall enough to play basketball – I would have greater access to better women. I wish often that I had ordinary intelligence rather than the extremes – it would make life more pleasant. I wish that I had been born in a prior generation of my family when it was much wealthier than others, rather than in a generation equal to others. But I compete. I win. I make a place where I can create value. I don’t rail against the world to justify my lack of ability, character, and fortitude. 　 Cheers