The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of the pseudoscientific Ashkenazi enlightenment of Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt, and Keynes, Mises and Rothbard, to the Scientific enlightenment of Hayek, Popper, Einstein, Darwin, Spencer, Pareto, Durkheim, and myself.
It is one thing to say “all these men failed, and each brought a piece of the puzzle to the intellectual table, but none was able to assemble it.”
it is another to say Mises and Rothbard were ‘Austrians” of the empirical enlightenment seeking to restate german ethics from rationalism to social science, rather Ukrainians/Russians/Poles of the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific enlightenment seeking to restate eastern European ethics in an evolution of Jewish law. ie: not science. It’s fairly clear that Mises didn’t even understand what the term meant.
Otherwise we must seek to constantly publish that their advocacy of libertinism and low trust ethics is merely an attempt to perpetuate the landless libertine ethics of eastern European borderlands, and European ghettos, as a competitor to the landed high trust aristocratic ethics of the martial peoples of Europe and their ancestors.
There is no libertine liberty of permission, nor can one possess a condition of liberty when one cannot retaliate for unproductive exchanges. The only existentially possible condition of liberty one can possess is that of the high trust produced by the universal, incremental, suppression of parasitism, and the limitation of man to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.
There is room in the intellectual space for restoration of the Austrian program of empirical social science of non-interference (voluntaryism). We already have honest schools of discretionary economic rule (mainstream Keynesian), non-discretionary economic rule of law (Chicago), but we have lost school of the non-discretionary, non-interference, where were seek only to improve the information provided by institutions not alter it deceptively for any reason. There may, in fact, be room in economic science and political policy for each of these schools because they range from the short term (fiscal-discretionary) to the medium term (monetary0-rule of law), to the long-term (institutional non-interference). But without the existence of all three there exists insufficient intellectual competition for each to be limited to its boundaries.
Currently, our think tanks appear to follow the academic rule that thought only reforms with the death of its proponents. So we are stuck with romantic historicism of Heritage, the Moral Contractualism of Cato, the various smaller groups still hanging on economics rather than all of social science, and the Mises institute still dragging the limp body of failed eastern European libertinism into which they’ve overinvested their life’s works like the Ashkenazi enlightenment has dragged its peers on >>>>> ‘s chain: marxism/socialism and neoconservatism. All are nonsense that deny mankind’s demonstrated behaviors in an attempt – like its religious forbearer – to produce a psychic alternate reality that brings nothing but dark ages.
I am not an advocate of any institution, but of liberty itself. And the only existentially possible liberty is that where we use the promise of organized violence to prevent the alternatives. Because liberty is unnatural to man. It requires productivity that is hard, unforgiving, genetically bound, prone to risk, and entirely meritocratic.
That liberty is produced by a militia, a book of Natural Law, an independent judiciary treating the common natural law as sacred, and the total suppression of parasitism by every possible means, interpersonal, economic, and political.
Hayek was correct in that the common law of natural law and property is the source of liberty. Mises discovered operationalism in economics, at the inspiration of weber and spencer. Popper discovered that darwin;s survival applied to knowledge, and that Hum’s criticism of induction was correct. Rothbard discovered that all ethics, morality and law could be represented as property rights. Hoppe discovered that representatives (agents) cannot possess beneficial incentives, and further explained that all political institutions could be converted into constructions of property rights – providing universal decidability. Haidt discovered that we all vote our reproductive interests, and I discovered that these interests can also be expressed as property rights. My meager contribution has been to unite these thinkers, providing the Wilsonian synthesis, and to extend the division of labor into the division of perception and advocacy on behalf of our reproductive strategies.
This is the future of liberty. Truth and the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by the judical application and common law discovery of natural law: the law of property
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Critique
-
A Future for the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of the pseudoscientific Ashkenazi enlightenment of Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt, and Keynes, Mises and Rothbard, to the Scientific enlightenment of Hayek, Popper, Einstein, Darwin, Spencer, Pareto, Durkheim, and myself. It is one thing to say “all these men failed, and each brought a piece of the puzzle to the intellectual table, but none was able to assemble it.” it is another to say Mises and Rothbard were ‘Austrians” of the empirical enlightenment seeking to restate german ethics from rationalism to social science, rather Ukrainians/Russians/Poles of the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific enlightenment seeking to restate eastern European ethics in an evolution of Jewish law. ie: not science. It’s fairly clear that Mises didn’t even understand what the term meant. Otherwise we must seek to constantly publish that their advocacy of libertinism and low trust ethics is merely an attempt to perpetuate the landless libertine ethics of eastern European borderlands, and European ghettos, as a competitor to the landed high trust aristocratic ethics of the martial peoples of Europe and their ancestors. There is no libertine liberty of permission, nor can one possess a condition of liberty when one cannot retaliate for unproductive exchanges. The only existentially possible condition of liberty one can possess is that of the high trust produced by the universal, incremental, suppression of parasitism, and the limitation of man to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same. There is room in the intellectual space for restoration of the Austrian program of empirical social science of non-interference (voluntaryism). We already have honest schools of discretionary economic rule (mainstream Keynesian), non-discretionary economic rule of law (Chicago), but we have lost school of the non-discretionary, non-interference, where were seek only to improve the information provided by institutions not alter it deceptively for any reason. There may, in fact, be room in economic science and political policy for each of these schools because they range from the short term (fiscal-discretionary) to the medium term (monetary0-rule of law), to the long-term (institutional non-interference). But without the existence of all three there exists insufficient intellectual competition for each to be limited to its boundaries. Currently, our think tanks appear to follow the academic rule that thought only reforms with the death of its proponents. So we are stuck with romantic historicism of Heritage, the Moral Contractualism of Cato, the various smaller groups still hanging on economics rather than all of social science, and the Mises institute still dragging the limp body of failed eastern European libertinism into which they’ve overinvested their life’s works like the Ashkenazi enlightenment has dragged its peers on >>>>> ‘s chain: marxism/socialism and neoconservatism. All are nonsense that deny mankind’s demonstrated behaviors in an attempt – like its religious forbearer – to produce a psychic alternate reality that brings nothing but dark ages. I am not an advocate of any institution, but of liberty itself. And the only existentially possible liberty is that where we use the promise of organized violence to prevent the alternatives. Because liberty is unnatural to man. It requires productivity that is hard, unforgiving, genetically bound, prone to risk, and entirely meritocratic. That liberty is produced by a militia, a book of Natural Law, an independent judiciary treating the common natural law as sacred, and the total suppression of parasitism by every possible means, interpersonal, economic, and political. Hayek was correct in that the common law of natural law and property is the source of liberty. Mises discovered operationalism in economics, at the inspiration of weber and spencer. Popper discovered that darwin;s survival applied to knowledge, and that Hum’s criticism of induction was correct. Rothbard discovered that all ethics, morality and law could be represented as property rights. Hoppe discovered that representatives (agents) cannot possess beneficial incentives, and further explained that all political institutions could be converted into constructions of property rights – providing universal decidability. Haidt discovered that we all vote our reproductive interests, and I discovered that these interests can also be expressed as property rights. My meager contribution has been to unite these thinkers, providing the Wilsonian synthesis, and to extend the division of labor into the division of perception and advocacy on behalf of our reproductive strategies. This is the future of liberty. Truth and the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by the judical application and common law discovery of natural law: the law of property Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Only Autists, Narcissists, And The Anti Social Can Be Fooled By Rothbardianism.
It’s actually pretty obvious that the only person who could think like a rothbardian libertarian is an autistic or narcissist that has only limited understanding of himself, and no understanding of others, and near total buy-in of the Marxist view of history claiming man was oppressed. When the opposite is true: man was forcibly domesticated against the will of the majority of men and women. And our prosperity is largely the result of that domestication – of the underclasses – and those regions that failed to domesticate their underclasses through suppressing their reproduction remained in poverty, disease, violence thievery, corruption and disease.
-
Only Autists, Narcissists, And The Anti Social Can Be Fooled By Rothbardianism.
It’s actually pretty obvious that the only person who could think like a rothbardian libertarian is an autistic or narcissist that has only limited understanding of himself, and no understanding of others, and near total buy-in of the Marxist view of history claiming man was oppressed. When the opposite is true: man was forcibly domesticated against the will of the majority of men and women. And our prosperity is largely the result of that domestication – of the underclasses – and those regions that failed to domesticate their underclasses through suppressing their reproduction remained in poverty, disease, violence thievery, corruption and disease.
-
We overplayed Searle. He isn’t right
We overplayed Searle. He isn’t right.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-06 18:41:00 UTC
-
Why Study Philosophy? Well. Don’t.
October 3 at 9:24am ·If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of philosophy is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could, on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating. -
Why Study Philosophy? Well. Don’t.
October 3 at 9:24am ·If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of philosophy is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could, on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating. -
Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?
1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine
-
Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?
1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine
-
Stuck on Malinvestments.
ADHERENCE TO FALSIFIED THEORIES ISN”T DEMONSTRATING INTELLIGENCE – JUST LOSS AVOIDANCE GIVEN ONE’S OVERINVESTMENT IN MALINVESTMENT Sure I spent a lot of time at LvMI. But you know, once you know your theory is bullshit it’s time to seek another. There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.
The organization of acquisition, inventory, transformation, and consumption, the organization of reproduction, the organization of production, distribution and trade, the organization of commons production and the organization of territorial limits. It is by the suppression of parasitism that we create the Liberty we seek.