Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Hayek is not an authority to depend upon for deductive reasoning. His entire gen

    Hayek is not an authority to depend upon for deductive reasoning. His entire generation failed. All of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 08:39:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754596342723387392

    Reply addressees: @TylerBoliver @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754595826832379904

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TylerBoliver @jeffreyatucker Keep in mind that despite his insight into the necessity of common natural law, he failed to solve soc science

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/754595826832379904

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @TylerBoliver @jeffreytucker Keep in mind that despite his insight into the necessity of common natural law, he failed to solve soc science

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/754595826832379904

  • YES, ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANS ARE MARXISTS, BUT ARYAN LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST THE

    YES, ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANS ARE MARXISTS, BUT ARYAN LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    ( important piece )

    I suppose it’s difficult for Rothbardian Libertines to face the harsh reality that their narrative relies upon the Jewish and Marxist fallacy that man was oppressed by his rulers rather than domesticated out of animal barbarism through constant culling of malcontents, parasites, and the unproductive.

    If you are a Rothbardian libertarian you must de facto be a Marxist, whether you ascribe to the socialist economic model or the libertine economic model is actually irrelevant.

    The economic model is merely a reflection of class reproductive needs, or demographic constituency – two terms which are synonyms reflecting only the difference between subjective desire and objective causality.

    The Jews gave us the comforting fallacy of victim hood in the forms of communism, libertinism, and neoconservatism.

    The aryans gave us the uncomfortable truths of nature worship hero worship, and the sacredness of family, Aristotelianism, sovereign rule of law between warrior heads of households, and heroism in the contribution to the commons as duty and status.

    The truth is uncomfortable but simple.

    Eradicate parasitism and save surpluses in the commons and you will, over the long term, defeat all opponents.

    The only source of Liberty is the organised application of violence to suppress all parasitism.

    First by centralising local rents as taxation necessary to create the moral order we call Liberty.

    Second by suppressing all rents from the central order, by incremental replacement with competitions – just as we suppressed local parasitism through competition.

    Then leaving nothing but rule of law, a market for commons prohibiting consumption, and a market for consumption prohibiting parasitism by the commons.

    This is the most rational, logical, scientific form of government available to man.

    Every other kind requires deceit.

    Which is why every other civilisation and every government within each civilisation relied upon deceit.

    The west discovered and benefitted from uncomfortable technologies of truth, testimony, sovereignty and property. Despite their high cost.

    We have exchanged the high normative cost of truth, testimony, sovereignty and property for the high material cost of taxation, loss of rule of law, loss of Liberty, loss of sovereignty, loss of family, loss of tribe and race, and loss of civilisation.

    In retrospect we have made very bad exchange.

    Thankfully with truth and violence we can correct it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 04:07:00 UTC

  • ONLY AUTISTS, NARCISSISTS, AND THE ANTI SOCIAL CAN BE FOOLED BY ROTHBARDIANISM.

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 03:38:00 UTC

  • Unless one starts with a definition of truth these are fairly meaningless words.

    Unless one starts with a definition of truth these are fairly meaningless words.

    More desperate attempts to apply axiomatic or theoretic rules to loaded, framed, colloquial speech without the awareness that colloquial speech evolved to tolerate laziness, obscure ignorance, convey moral promise, and as such is neither axiomatic or theoretic but merely “meaningful”: conveying associations not necessary relations that are open to deduction.

    Types of Committment ( promise, warranty ):

    Understanding: I can also find a relationship between that description and my experience. ( warranty of sympathy )

    Belief: I intuit so given my experience but I cannot warranty I have tested it. But I warranty that I speak honestly, even if I err.(moral warranty)

    Rational: I can find no contradiction for within my experience, and warranty that I have tried. ( warranty of diligence without cost of testing )

    Empirical: I find it to be correspondent with observations (measurements) that warrant against errors in observation ( warranty of diligence and bearing the cost of testing )

    Scientific: despite my efforts I find it is correspondent and I cannot find a reason that it is false so it remains a truth candidate. ( warranty of diligence and investing in expanding testing )

    Testimonial: I have conducted tests of identity, internal consistency, empirical consistency, existential possibility, objective morality, full accounting, parsimony and limits and as such it is very likely for the question at hand that this statement will survive all scrutiny and only increase in parsimony. ( warranty of total testing )

    The only existentially possible truth is promissory.

    The only existential truth we can warranty is testimonial.

    One does not justify a truth one demonstrates a warranty of the degree of his diligence.

    Thus endeth the lesson. ;).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-15 04:25:00 UTC

  • ( from philpapers) This question is one of the reasons philosophy departments ar

    ( from philpapers)

    This question is one of the reasons philosophy departments are increasingly defunded and philosophy is demoted to the status of religious studies.

    Why? You can justify your actions to a jury of your peers by arguing that you acted within ethical, moral, legal, norms.

    Because you can justify ( sympathetically test ) contractual ( axiomatic or normative or contractual) rules.

    You may justify the costs (opportunity, material, risk) of action to yourself or to your peers, or to the nation or even humanity.

    But it is the COST that you justify, not the belief. We know this because people do not attempt to justify benefits ( gains ) or washes ( zero cost ) or cost entirely absorbed by the actor.

    No belief then is ever justified or justifiable. The greater the cost the more evidence of due diligence we require of ourselves and others.

    This is the difference between legal, scriptural, and normative justificationism, the persist of truth via criticism, wherein we require ourselves and others to do due diligence against harm (cost).

    This is why philosophy fails to complete the enlightenment transition and to leave its relation to mysticism, Platonism, scripturalism, and justificationism.

    There is only one epistemically method available to man: free association -> hypothesis -> theory —> law -> additional parsimony.

    And we move from imaginary to law by acts of criticism: survival.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-12 10:48:00 UTC

  • The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 08:19:00 UTC

  • LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS RENDERING ROTHBARDIANISM INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING A SHO

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/

    RENDERING ROTHBARDIANISM INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/

    A SHORT COURSE IN THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/02/04/a-short-course-in-the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/

    THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/23/the-only-means-of-eliminating-the-state-and-constructing-liberty/

    THE MORALITY AND VIRTUE OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/22/the-virtue-of-organized-violence/

    PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ONLY ACQUIRABLE BY VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/22/the-honesty-of-violence/

    LIBERTY IS UNNATURAL – IT IS CREATED BY ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/09/liberty-isnt-inherent-its-unnatural-we-create-it-with-organized-violence/

    REVOLUTION REQUIRES THAT WE ABANDON ALL HOPE IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT: DEMOCRACY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/revolution-requires-only-that-we-abandon-all-hope/

    FRAGILITY: IT’S EASIER THAN EVER TO REVOLT

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/fragility-its-easier-than-ever-to-revolt/

    CLOSING: ONE BITE AT A TIME

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/propertarianism-for-new-friends-one-bite-at-a-time/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:14:00 UTC

  • PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF. Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is n

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/992320.shtmlCHINESE PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF.

    Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is not a very Chinese thing to do) and truthful (which is also not a very Chinese thing to do), and state that while it is in the Chinese military INTEREST to claim the south china sea is it’s territory – because the south china sea is the strategic means of starving out the Chinese in case of war – the fact remains that many OTHER nations had PREVIOUS claims on this same territory and China STOLE IT FROM THEM.

    Now China could say (maybe) that it was a previous possession of some sort, but then by the same logic the USA could say that if the Chinese have such claims to previous state’s property then they ALSO have responsibilities for previous state DEBTS. And the Chinese owe Americans TRILLIONS of dollars now that were unpaid by the previous government.

    It is a very Chinese habit to lie. Lying is a part of the culture. Delay, deceit, and lying are the primary strategy of the Chinese when dealing with other peoples and often with themselves. Lying and deceit are raised to the status of ‘good manners’ by the art of ‘face’ (denial of reality).

    So please forgive us in the West – those of us who have built a high trust society because by and large we try to speak truthfully even when we are foolishly optimistic – if we do not take any Chinese words very seriously.

    The fact of the matter is that china used ‘aggression’ to capture territory of other neighboring nations that were too weak to resist, and by that aggression, has stolen that which was the property of others.

    So if we are not making moral arguments any longer we are only making arguments to strategic necessity, then given china’s murderous record against even its own people, we should not take a moral stance either, and we should prevent china from taking control of this territory which would make it possible for one of the world’s most dishonest and murderous people to extend their reach beyond their coast line.

    Right?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:47:00 UTC

  • ( criticism of pseudoscientific drivel ) —“from the Kant generator in the Waff

    ( criticism of pseudoscientific drivel )

    —“from the Kant generator in the Waffle Hall of Fame”–

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 14:01:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE TO BRAD DELONG’S CRITICISM OF JUSTICE THOMAS’ ORIGINALISM. ( from his s

    RESPONSE TO BRAD DELONG’S CRITICISM OF JUSTICE THOMAS’ ORIGINALISM.

    ( from his site )

    Brad,

    The purpose of originalism, textualism and the intention of strict construction, is to force well constructed legislation and to force the legislature to act to improve clarify or repair laws – precisely because this limits if not prevents legislation from the bench.

    Missing from these three movements is the requirement that new legislation include the positive assertion as well as the negative prohibition thereby mandating the inclusion of the original intention and scope of the law.

    The framers understood natural law and they understood legal construction. They knew what they were doing because memory of the English civil war that drove them and their ancestors (and mine) to the colony for having tried to constrain the state from returning to rule by discretion.

    In theory and in practice Thomas’ assertion that the violations of legal construction by the court in the twentieth century have made the law logically I un-decidable are simply true. And members of the court differ between those that seek to restore responsibility for the quality of legislation to the government, those that feel tradition of precedent is preferable to the formal logic of strict construction, and those that wish the court to decide by discretion rather than precedent or natural law.

    Now all readers ( and any public intellectual with passing economic literacy ) knows that you are one of the advocates of discretion not only in economic policy but in law as well.

    So you hold to the radical populist method of decidability which we call the saltwater ideology. There are pragmatists that are trained by our academic institutions to rely upon tradition just as we have the pragmatism of the Chicago school : interference must be limited to that which we have no choice. There are still others that feel the law like physics and logic should be left fully decideable and that the contracts whether public legislation ( contract for commons ) or private ( contact for private goods) must be constructed by those formal logical rules, and that it is up to legislators to find a legal way under natural law to achieve desired ends creatively. This is the position of the most conservative economists – and had it not been interrupted the German Austrian school.

    In both economics and law, the debate between the left short term confident discretionists, the medium term minimal pragmatists, and the long them proceduralists continues.

    In every era we see the state attempt to exercise discretion and the productive classes attempt to prevent construction and to preserve rule of law.

    Although the left has been successful in intentionally conflating legislation consisting of command or contract, those of us who know better, maintain the rhetorical defense: that law means natural law. That common law means judge discovered expansions of natural law, and that legislation can only be logically decidable if we interpret it as contract negotiated on behalf of constituents, but contract under natural law none the less.

    So you may possess confidence in your judgements and rose of others, but these procedures were put in place to require government to operate as scientifically as humanly possible given mans record of demonstrated hubris and folly.

    You might counter that you have such and such empirical evidence, and you may or may not understand that your claims are false.

    But for you to make a claim that an economic assertion is true it must survive the same tests as any other scientific claim:

    1) categorical consistency ( identity )

    2) internal consistency ( logical )

    3) external correspondence ( empirical )

    4) existential possibility ( operationally defined )

    5) ethically and morally consistent ( consisting of productive, fully informed, voluntary transfers, limited to externality of the same ) IOW:rational.

    6) fully accounted for all costs to all capital , stated limits, and parsimony.

    Now I will put forward that the reason conservatives cannot argue their strategy ratio scientifically because it’s purpose is eugenic and that is not mass marketable under monopoly majoritarian representative democracy.

    But conversely I will also put forward that you are advocating discretion in economics, politics, and law, because you likewise cannot admit your strategy is dysgenic – reversing europe’s 3500 year strategy of eugenic policy – and because to achieve it you are burning down that genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual capital such that neither economic science, scientific government, and scientific law, nor the extended, nor inter generational family no less, can survive.

    And you justify it with nothing more than increasing rates of consumption despite the evidence that it makes no difference to happiness.

    So perhaps you should consider whether it is Thomas who speaks truth and acts morally, or you.

    Because the logic of that question is not in your favor I think.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 13:39:00 UTC