Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • @JonHaidt @sapinker (unfinished) REGARDING A PHILOSOPHER’S CRITICISM OF HAIDT (P

    @JonHaidt @sapinker (unfinished)

    REGARDING A PHILOSOPHER’S CRITICISM OF HAIDT (PSYCHOLOGY) AS AUTHORITATIVE

    A subject near and dear to my own work. I am going to flip the criticism around and ask how can I test wether one is engaging in truthful speech warrantied against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fraud, and deception, and which speaker is forcing me to bear costs to test the truthfulness of his speech?

    PART 1

    As far as I know, ethics can be discussed using these methods of decidability:

    – Normative: (Empirically Demonstrated) cooperation

    – Descriptive: Scientific(Causal) ethics of existential cooperation.

    – Philosophical:Theoretical Ethical Substitutes of rational origin

    – Religious: Authoritative Ethical Substitutes of supernatural origin.

    – Legislative: Authoritative ethical substitutes of discretionary origin.

    – Natural Law: (universal scientific) Necessary(legal) for rational cooperation.

    As far as I know, the discipline of ethics consists of these categories:

    1) Crime: prohibition on material parasitism using physical actions.

    2) Ethics: prohibition on interpersonal parasitism using asymmetry of information that could be resolved.

    3) Morality: prohibition on parasitism using asymmetry of information that cannot be resolved.

    4) Right Action, Moral Action, Ethical Action: any means of personal fulfillment that does not impose costs upon others (parasitism) by means of criminal, ethical, or moral means.

    5) Wrong action: the imposition of NET costs upon others with whom one is cooperating.

    This set of definitions in themselves make it difficult to engage in philosophical obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.

    I say this to illustrate false definitions in the critic’s article.

    Now lets explain why he can engage in his definitions and reasoning.

    PART 2

    Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Psychology has rescued itself (partly) from pseudoscience by the self imposed adoption of Operationism as a replacement for subjective interpretation (introspection).

    This movement of self correction in psychology also succeeded partly in physics (Bridgman), and partly succeeded in philosophy(Popper), but failed in mathematics (Brouwer/Poincare), failed in economics (Mises).

    Because of these failures, most scientists specialize in the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our free association. Meanwhile, most philosophers continue to specialize in wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading, obscuring, suggestion and justification.

    Most philosophy, and we can say all continental philosophy, continues the Kantian Rousseauan tradition of post supernatural literature, in search of a replacement for the bible: to find an excuse to advance their social methods by rational means. Whereas anglos and particularly americans, avoid such acts of conflation, by using literature for the construction of hypotheses, and science for the construction of truth propositions. As far as I know we remain the only people (english speakers) who make this separation, and avoid conflation of truth and creativity. But why? Because anglo social science has always been constructed by the common law, leaving the middle class its philosophy and the lower classes its religion.

    The scientific method is of course, a problematic study because while it produces remarkable results, it works by requiring that we warranty our SPEECH has been subject to due diligence in every dimension we know of:

    1) unique identity (non-conflation),

    2) internal consistency (logical),

    3) external consistency (correspondence),

    4) existential possibility (Operationalism, Operationism, Intuitionism),

    5) Parsimony(clarity)+Limits(boundaries)+Full accounting(no selection bias),

    …and lastly, and most recently..

    6) “Morality” (natural law of voluntary transfer).

    So to flip the criticism around, if we can warranty that we have done our due diligence, why can many philosophers not do so?

    While natural philosophy (Science) has been a boon since the days of Aristotle, all other branches of philosophy have a pretty horrible record as little more than the use of various means of verbal deception by members of the middle class, to attempt to seize political power. In fact, it is unclear that philosophy outside of natural philosophy, has not done more harm than good. Certainly Kant, Marx, Freud and Boaz have done catastrophic damage to mankind – damage that it is almost impossible to price (determine the costs of).

    You see, truth(perfect parsimony) we can never know that we speak outside of tautologies or reductio absurdities. But we *can* know what survives all known criticism by the same means. We call those LAWS. As in free-association->hypothesis->theory->law. (Not as in legislation as a law-substitute.)

    And worse, since the purpose of scientific(warrantied/truthful) language is to reduce the cost of the audience’s testing of the truthfulness of statements on the one hand, and to do the least harm on the other, then my question of such a philosopher is why he imposes the cost upon us of testing his language for error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. And as such makes no warranty that he does not speak falsely, or attempt to engage us in some manner of criminal, ethical, moral fraud.

    It isn’t that the language and method of science produces truth. It is that we use scientific methods, language, and warranties, as methods of reducing the cost of testing statements, and of warrantying that we do no harm in our speech.

    This works in Psychology principally because the field was certain to be eliminated by the field of cognitive science unless it abandoned projection and authoritarianism imposed by freud’s new feminine pseudoscience. So to survive the field had to reform. It did, by adopting the gold standard: operational language. Operational language guarantees (mostly) that we speak in existential terms.

    The movement failed in mathematics, which is why we have this persistent nonsense of multiple infinities (and possibly why we have stalled in physics) because the method of construction and the method of generating hypotheses in mathematics is marginally indifferent.

    It failed in economics because the ability to use pseudoscientific macro correlations to legislate immoral transfers by use of fiat credit, so that accumulated long term capital by prior generations could be consumed in by the present generation, was such a political incentive under democracy that we could not overcome it.

    It failed in social science because the introduction of women into the academy’s customer pool and into the political voting pool provided more incentive to produce Boazian pseudoscience than to simply continue western social science: The family as the unit of production and reproduction, Natural law, Common law, Universal standing, Rule of law (universal application) as the only empirical science. And because democracy provided so much utility in the manufacture of legislation, and by conflating legislation (command) with law (natural law of cooperation) thereby converting law from an empirical science of cooperation to a moral scripture of popular will (pseudoscience).

    So it is better to see Pinker/Haidt in the academy and press (and to a lesser degree, in politics and law in my work) as attempting to reverse a century of pseudoscience in the social sciences. A century made possible by the combination of the industrial revolution and the sale of the conquered american continents to generations who could be fed by the new means of organizing production distribution and trade.

    So my reversal would be to ask whether the philosopher in question is engaging in a warranty of the truthfulness of his statements, just as Haidt has tried to do with his.

    Natural law would not as first whether something may be true, but first, whether something may be a deceit. And only after we have determined it is not a fraud of some kind, or a perjury of some kind, do we attempt to ascertain whether such a statement is in fact true.

    This is how our anglo courts work really. They do not try to find the truth so much as try to find a lie.

    (So, did you see what I just did there?)

    PART 2

    Haidt solved part of the Wilsonian Synthesis problem by connecting biology, psychology, politics. (Bypassing ethics) and starting with individual and group (survival) evolutionary strategies. It is from the comparative analysis of these group strategies, yet the universal value of cooperation, that we can make fairly certain statements about ethical and moral intuitions.

    What Haidt did not do (not having studied economic history) was tie his work in moral intuitions, political bias, and evolutionary strategy, to social sciences of cooperation:

    i) Natural(Common) – the Law of cooperation. Or that all of THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS can be broken into two categories: personal property prohibitions against free riding and common property prohibitions against free riding. And that the distribution of the biases reflect the three points of the political compass: female consumption bias, libertarian production bias, and conservative concentration of resources bias. Or that these three biases represent an intertemporal division of labor.

    ii) The problem of the distribution of perception, cognition, memory, labor, and advocacy between the genders and classes.

    iii) The problem of the distribution of creativity (openness to experience), impulsivity, aggression, and intelligence between groups and the different evolutionary strategies that are not only preferable but necessary for each group, and the problem of monopoly production of commons that defines popular democracy as incompatible with the preservation of cooperation.

    iiii) Economics(production of consumable goods and services), and

    Political institutions(production of non consumable commons), and

    v) Group evolutionary strategy. Variations in manners, ethics, morals, and laws to allow a group to compete using it’s abilities or lack thereof. Various violations of natural law codified in myth, tradition, norm, and law that enable the group to survive competition.

    Examples: Anglo meritocratic military and commercial universalism as a method of seeking rents on technological advancement. Greek/Teutonic Domestication of farming Tribes, Flood Plain organization of tribes into irrigation labor, Steppe-Desert containment of raiding by herding tribes, islamic, jewish and gypsy ethical asymmetry.

    BUT, IF WE DO…

    By using the language of these fields of cooperation, we can then convert from the subjective point of view of the language of experience, psychology, sociology, to the objective point of view of cooperation, creating an operational, existentially possible, unloaded, unobscured, language for use in those fields that we today call epistemology, psychology, ethics, sociology, politics, group evolutionary strategy, war+religion, and aesthetics.

    PART 3

    Cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. At least up until the externalities inhibit group competitiveness.

    It is these externalities no longer in the service of the group that is causing political conflict under democracy.

    Democracy = Monopoly rule over the Monopoly production of commons. As differences decline, monopoly becomes impediment.

    Contrary to ideology. Evidence is in. We vote our group evolutionary strategies. Period. It is all we can decide.

    This is the great problem of our age. The end of monopoly rule over groups with heterogeneous strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-19 07:46:00 UTC

  • NONSENSE: “WHAT IS LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM?” Like “meritocratic communism” it is e

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-communism/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=086db11fQUORA NONSENSE: “WHAT IS LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM?”

    Like “meritocratic communism” it is either an impossibility, **o****r**** a lie**.

    Most likely **a lie** to cover an impossibility. Most such lies are created in order to perpetuate fraud by political means by making false moral appeals in an effort to avoid exchanging behavioral limitations for material rewards.

    **Libertarianism:** universal individual ownership of property, and voluntarily constructed commons.

    **Socialism:** Universal state ownership of property, and the involuntarily constructed commons, where bureaucratic or authoritarian leaders determine the assignments of work and the distribution of proceeds from the work – (which usually don’t end up existing) Socialism is a failed experiment.

    **Mixed economy:** Involuntary organization of the production of commons using representatives who appropriate the proceeds of production. Plus the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds that are later redistributed as commons. This is in practice the western model since voters demonstrably do not vote for policy but ideology.

    **Direct Economic/market Democracy: ** The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting for desired commons with the contributions that one has produced. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds some portion of which are used to produce commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. But competitive commons are class-weighted. This is an unlikely experiment except in small, very wealthy communities.

    **Direct Redistributive/Shareholder Democracy:** The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting a SHARE of the proceeds from a mixed economy. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services, which generates the proceeds some portino of which are used to produce commons. This means meritocratic contribution to commons but egalitarian decision of commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. This is a likely next generation of Government since it eliminates the unnecessary conflcit of monopoly commons and eliminates the existence of politicians who engage in corruption.

    We must organize cooperation (morality)

    We must organize reproduction (family)

    We must organize production (market)

    We must organize commons (government)

    We must organize a monopoly with which to hold our territory (military)

    If you aren’t using these terms then you’re probably engaged in error or lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-18 12:03:00 UTC

  • What Is Libertarian Communism?

    Like “meritocratic communism” it is either an impossibility, or a lie. Most likely a lie to cover an impossibility. Most such lies are created in order to perpetuate fraud by political means by making false moral appeals in an effort to avoid exchanging behavioral limitations for material rewards.

    Libertarianism: universal individual ownership of property, and voluntarily constructed commons.

    Socialism: Universal state ownership of property, and the involuntarily constructed commons, where bureaucratic or authoritarian leaders determine the assignments of work and the distribution of proceeds from the work – (which usually don’t end up existing)  Socialism is a failed experiment.

    Mixed economy: Involuntary organization of the production of commons using representatives who appropriate the proceeds of production.  Plus the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds that are later redistributed as commons. This is in practice the western model since voters demonstrably do not vote for policy but ideology.

    Direct Economic/market Democracy: The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting for desired commons with the contributions that one has produced.  Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds some portion of which are used to produce commons.  In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary.  But competitive commons are class-weighted.  This is an unlikely experiment except in small, very wealthy communities.

    Direct Redistributive/Shareholder Democracy:  The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting a SHARE of the proceeds from a mixed economy. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services, which generates the proceeds some portino of which are used to produce commons.  This means meritocratic contribution to commons but egalitarian decision  of commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. This is a likely next generation of Government since it eliminates the unnecessary conflcit of monopoly commons and eliminates the existence of politicians who engage in corruption.

    We must organize cooperation (morality)
    We must organize reproduction (family)
    We must organize production (market)
    We must organize commons (government)
    We must organize a monopoly with which to hold our territory (military)

    If you aren’t using these terms then you’re probably engaged in error or lie.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-communism

  • Is Socialism Dangerous?

    Isn’t 100 Million dead in one century because of a pseudoscientific economic and political system propagated by tyrants from the underclasses enough evidence? Isn’t India’s continued problem with ever-present corruption evidence?

    How do you price the damage done by the soviets, the chinese, the southeast asians, the south americans, the hindus from these experiments with socialism?

    The most capitalist societies provide the greatest benefits by redistribution.

    The most socialist societies provide the worse benefits by redistribution.

    THE ONLY PEOPLE TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT SOCIALISM?

    Are liberal arts, and ‘extended high school’ students who are not smart enough to get into STEM classes.  The kind of people who can learn by reading  100-120 IQ) but who are not smart enough to manage science (abstract empiricism).   THe people who follow these mere literary believers in the sub-100 IQ space cannot be blamed. They cannot grasp these matters anyway.  They imitate those that they understand.

    Think of Socialism and Communism as a literary equivalent of Science Fiction and Fantasy (which constitute a libertarian movement).  They are both nonsense extremes.  The arose in nearly the same fashion at nearly the same times, as the myths of the new age.  Socialism and communism the restatement of peasant christianity, and science fiction and fantasy the restatement of pagan aristocracy.

    Rule of law under the common law under natural law, with which we suppress parasitism and free riding;  the credit society under which our behavior is regulated more so by credit and job than by law and religion;  and macro economics in which we attempt to stimulate production sufficiently to keep all employed; and finally genetic and cognitive science – are relatively scientific disciplines.  They are not literary fantasies of socialism or  science fiction.

    Communism, socialism, and the myth of the horrid worker who chose the factory happily, willingly, and enthusiastically, over the subsistence of the farm, are all literary inventions.  None of it is real. None of it happened.

    Utopias always fail.  Socialism and communism were the second attempt to spread a new religion – this time by pseudoscientific literature.  The first time by religious mysticism in ancient era’s version of literature – myth.

    Both have had nothing but evil consequences. 

    Why?  Because only very stupid people believe them, and very stupid people can be led by them.  Unfortunately, very stupid people make up more than half of the living population. In many countries they make up three to four fifths of the population.

    We all seek justification of our reproductive strategies.  The problem for the undesirable, unintelligent, and unproductive is that they are aware of their incompetence but must seek lies to justify their existences.    It must be someone else’s fault. It cannot be that they are human waste products the result of dysgenic over reproduction, and the only reason they live is that we have petroleum products to keep them warm and feed them in winter…  (ouch)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-socialism-dangerous

  • LET ME CORRECT YOU —Voters choose on the basis of partisan loyalties, and thes

    LET ME CORRECT YOU

    —Voters choose on the basis of partisan loyalties, and these days party voting has a much bigger influence on state and local elections than it used to—

    Voters vote their reproductive strategies.

    Our parties increasingly reflect our reproductive strategies.

    Because of Forced Diversity, reproductive strategies are the greatest determinant of political preference.

    This will never change.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-17 12:57:00 UTC

  • A FALSE DICHITOMY IN CHESTERSON CLARIFIED. —“You can be guided by the shrewdne

    A FALSE DICHITOMY IN CHESTERSON CLARIFIED.

    —“You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation, but a nasty mess.”–G.K. Chesterson.

    He makes the mistake of confusing republican rule of law, with monarchical discretion. And he does not know enough about his past to identify market government as the third option instead of there being only two. Nor does he seem to grasp that whether we possess one decision maker, or many, or a market, that all three must regulate by rule of law, or none can produce good, and all will produce ill.

    But I am criticizing him for a point he does not make. He is merely saying that there must be rule. whether it is pure rule of law and competing commons (market government), rule of law with representative decision makers producing monopoly commons, or a monarch bound by rule of law, but with sole discretion over the production of commons, rule of law is a constant, and the means of decision making over the production of commons is simply a matter of the heterogeneity (republicanism) or heterogeneity (market and monarchy) of the interests of the population.

    My preference is to treat these three methods of decision making as a distribution of labor, and to say that the king must make decision on war, and hold veto (act as judge), the senate must make decisions on commerce(revenues/production), and the common people must make decisions on commons (insurance and consumption). And that if none can find legal means of veto then the measure should pass as a legitimate contract between the classes.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 07:19:00 UTC

  • DON’T PLAY IN THE DEEP END WITH THE BIG BOYS UNLESS YOU CAN SWIM (example of ref

    DON’T PLAY IN THE DEEP END WITH THE BIG BOYS UNLESS YOU CAN SWIM

    (example of refuting the use of rationalism as a means of deceit)

    Andy Edwards Jay Dyer,

    —” …when we speak of the three main branches of philosophy, we think ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.”—

    This statement is a tautology. When we use the term “philosophizing”, we use it in the sense of the purposeful use of reasoning to develop general rules of decidability and action: “choice”. When we discuss western philosophy in the intellectual tradition we traditionally use aristotle’s categories. Today we rely upon the languages of science, economics, and law and not on philosophy. We use philosophy to explain in western intellectual terms why science (speaking truthfully), economics (ethical cooperation) and law (enforcement of cooperation) succeeded where philosophy failed.

    This more sophisticated language addresses the process of sensation, observation(perception), free association(creativity), hypothesis (guess), theory(due diligence), Law (survival). Where theory consists of performing acts of due diligence:

    identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, limits, parsimony and full accounting.

    This more sophisticated process ignores all metaphysical and epistemological traditions of western philosophy as archaic forms of moral justification.

    –“These branches make up what is commonly called a worldview, our basic lenses of interpretation that form our understanding of the world.”—

    This is to grant philosophy necessity that it demonstrably does not possess. And it is to conflate the justification and explanation with the cause. Man must choose, and the method by which he chooses is something that we understand. man acquires. and he acquires under the general rule of the greatest return, for the least effort, in the shortest time, at the lowest risk, with the greatest certainty. There is no human behavior that cannot be explained by this (very) parsimonious theory. Man is not logical in the sense that he is aware of the consequences of the rules that he uses for decision making. But he is rational in that he pursues a goal within the limits of the physical universe, with the rules that he has discovered, to the best of his rational ability to deduce consequences from those rules. (Albeit this appears very limited especially in matters of high causal density).

    We used archaic philosophical categories in order to attempt to explain our understanding of the world by separating it into categories. But we did not develop categories in order to develop our pattern of decision in the world. If this was true all men would have developed such categories. They did not.

    We all possess various methods of decidability. We do not have any cognizance of archaic categories. in fact, there appears to be no reason why we require these categories at all. Because they are used in the archaic process of justificationism, and we know justificationism to be false, just as we know creationism to be false. Instead we have evolution in biology, and criticism in science.

    —“Like it or not, and admit it or not, we all have a worldview….”—

    We all collect methods of decidability through experience. Some groups create a broader narrative. Others do not. See “the people without history”.

    —“you cannot coherently build or construct a theory of knowledge apart from metaphysics or ethics.”—

    One does not need a justification for knowledge one only needs to observe and document the process by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. Knowledge performs it need not be justified. Ergo one does not need a theory of that which can be demonstrated only a theory of that which must be justified. And we know that what can be justified is irrelevant.

    We evolved justification out of a tradition moral and legal reasoning before the jury. Both of which exist in response to tacit(moral) and explicit(law) contractual provisions in any polity. But truth is not bound by prior contract made in an earlier state of ignorance.

    —“implicit in every logical epistemic claim is the assumption of a value claim.”—

    This is likely false but its unclear. I can use logic in an effort to improve my reasoning, so that I may improve my decision making. Value is only implicit in the use of logic in an act of persuasion is an attempt to eliminate ignorance, error, or deceit from another (or conversely to lie to him by the abuse of his ignorance, by suggesting error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit) for the purpose of obtaining cooperation. man cooperates because it is disproportionately more rewarding than any other actions that he can take. Moreover, if different groups are working toward different ends, and it cancels the value of one another’s productivity then, persuasion can benefit both parties as well. In either case it is not the logic that influences the other but his perception of the change in value that is conveyed by the logical organization of knowledge for the purpose of improving reasoning.

    —” … implicit in the operation of logic itself is the assumption that one should be logical and bound by objective truth claims.”—

    This is not true. One should satisfy one’s wants. Logic either assists in obtaining those wants or it does not. Logic assists us in cooperating, or it does not. We cannot reason with a fool. We cannot reason with faith. Our reason may err. Our reason may be disguised as deception. Likewise our faith may be a method of non-cooperation. Our faith may provide us with rules that are non logical but produce beneficial outcomes anyway. The problem with faith is that it is as resistant to advantageous adaptation, as it is to disadvantageous adaptation. Largely faith was ‘invented’ to divide people into groups with different cooperative strategies, and to eliminate different strategies between small groups of people allowing them to cooperate on irrational grounds. In these matters faith is advantageous because free of defeat by reason and science, the cooperative strategy can persist.

    If you want to say that logic is a strategy, just as science is a strategy, and that there exist other strategies not directly dependent upon logic and science then this is true. It however appears that given that science has a higher correspondence with reality and greater adaptability to reality, then those who practice science will defeat those that dont as long as they possess the will to defeat those who don’t. Truth, logic, science, technology, internal consistency and external correspondence are a competitive advantage against which mysticism cannot prevail except in the minds of the frail who need such things.

    —“Shoulds” are the domain of values and judgments and ethics, and so the assumption that one’s opponent in a debate, for example, should submit to the better argument is a shared assumption by both participants that truth itself has a claim on both parties.”—

    This is not true. Logic does not determine preference. All preference is subjective. However, if we are engaged in debate we are engaged in cooperation. And if your preference imposes a harm upon me, then we are no longer engaged in cooperation because you have broken the contract for negotiation. you are expanding a common western and jewish fallacy, that we can choose not to cooperate without consequence. Yet we can choose not to engage in exchange without consequence. But if you impose a cost on another and state that you are free of the logic of cooperation (morality) then you are not worthy of the benefit of cooperation, and your opponent my take up arms against you and punish you outside of such negotiation or jury. There are no free rides on one’s fantasies. We are all bound by the fact that if one does not cooperate then one is no benefit. If one provides competition without benefit then one is an enemy. It has nothing to do with your opinion or values. It has to do only with the opinion or value of your competitions.

    –“Yet again, that one should submit to truths is not the domain of pure logic or pure epistemology, but the realm of value judgments – ethics.”—

    We do not act as we should. We act in our interests. Doing as we should is a matter of acting in our interests when others will retaliate against us if we don’t.

    We use logic if it is useful. We use faith if it is useful. we use deceit if it is useful. and often we use all three in tandem (which i suspect you are guilty of).

    —“modern empiricist-based approaches which can never justify any coherent ethics, as they must all be situational and/or utilitarian.”—

    Empiricist ethical analysis tells us that people respond positively to productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same. And that other people try unproductive, asymmetric , involuntary coercions including externalities of the same to others.

    Which is what you appear to be doing: using obscurantism and error to create a complex deceit by which you can evade bearing the cost of cooperation yet cast it as moral and that you are somehow free of retaliation. In other words, a free rider. A thief. A fraud.

    —“any claim about knowledge or ethics will necessitate some beliefs and assumptions about metaphysics and ontology.”—

    That would entail embracing a falsehood. Since we do not make such claims, we make the claim that you possess knowledge or not, or engage in ethical and moral action or not.

    — the superstitious character of the positivist—

    Positivism requires theory. It consists of stating general rules. However, we need no general rules to demonstrate that you engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, obscurantism or deceit. We just need to empathically ascertain your motives – what you seek to acquire or what cost you seek to escape, and inquire into each of them until only moral and ethical remains.

    The reason to avoid logic is to increase the cost of that inquiry such that it is uncertain whether you engage in error or deceit. By avoiding logic you increase the cost of ascertaining the truth or falsehood, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, cooperative or uncooperative, nature of your actions just as relying upon obscurant and misrepresentation of philosophical terminology is a mere deceit by which you seek to increase the cost of ascertaining whether you free ride at best, worse that you steal, or worse of all that you compete under the pretense of cooperation and impose upon others your harm.

    So the empiricist, the scientist, the truth teller, tries to lower the cost of developing trust and cooperation. The positivist merely errs. But the obscurantist deceives. The justificationist deceives.

    —“Meanwhile, they tell us we must submit to “logical analysis.” Yet in their dogmatic inquisition, the positivist empiricist appears to already have an infallible benchmark by which to instruct the rest of the world on how to perfectly determine when a statement or a claim is purely and only logical, and not also ethical or metaphysical!”—

    Ah but no. We submit to logical analysis for the same reason we use the language of science to test external correspondence, and analytic philosophy to test internal consistency, so that we demonstrate due diligence, by reducing the cost of ascertaining whether one’s opponent engages in error, bias,

    And once we have made that discovery, engaging cooperation, refraining from cooperation, or is an enemy imposing costs upon us.

    What we find, empirically, that is the common case, is that one is arguing on behalf of a minority that is tied together through common status signaling and a false sense of moral superiority in order to hide their attempted theft from the commons.

    This is what you do. I am fairly certain. For I can find no other reason for you to make such arguments in innocence.

    So in case you fail to understand. I do not say that you err. I say that you lie. You are unethical, immoral, and a thief.

    The only reason to rely upon archaic philosophy or archaic mysticism is to lie.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 04:56:00 UTC

  • Edward Fürst 1 – Excellent demonstration of Pilpul. 2 – Excellent use of straw m

    Edward Fürst

    1 – Excellent demonstration of Pilpul.

    2 – Excellent use of straw man.

    3 – Excellent use of argument from ignorance.

    4 – Excellent user of black or white fallacy

    5 – Excellent use of shaming.

    6 – Excellent use of using all of the above to construct overloading.

    7 – Excellent use of creating a high cost of defense.

    In other words, an excellent use of Pilpul. Which is your usual argumentative technique: to raise the cost of refutation not to seek understanding, and not to refute but to make truthful discourse impossible. To demonstrate that you are in fact one of the liars we seek to prevent from lying.

    Now that we have established the method by which you conduct your intuitionistic attempt to pollute the commons, we can address your deceit point by point.

    ON DEFINITIONS OF IMPULSIVITY

    The article you site does not test impulsivity but aggression. Aggression may be the result of impulsiveness or reason, but the willingness to bear costs and risks in order to obtain returns does exist in a spectrum with men taking greater risks and women fewer risks. Hence why men are more expendable and why we are born in slightly greater numbers.

    So the question is instead why we would not prosecute the authors for conflating impulse with aggression since while aggression may be impulsive, men and women are equally impulsive but unequally aggressive.

    In fact, women have a much harder time managing their impulsive emotions. And they need to. Because the cost of caring for offspring is non-rational. SO women must be incentivized by nature non-rationally. They risk less but work more. We work less but risk more. We generally describe the differences as women play the role of gatherer-tortoise and men the role of hunter-hare. But this is just a necessary division of labor.

    ON LEGALITY OF TRUTH

    1) the scientific method consists not of a method but a set of criteria for eliminating falsehood.

    2) science requires operational language, parsimony, limits and full accounting. It does not require objective morality. Law does (mostly) require it. Science is extremely good at policing itself. (science proper does not take social science seriously).

    3) the law already includes many tests of sufficiency. If we can provide tests of sufficiency the law can treat them as any other list of sufficiency – particularly in moral matters (involuntary transfer). We must give the law tests of sufficiency. Which is what I have done with truth: warranties of sufficiency of due diligence in various dimensions.

    4) If one communicates poorly that is very different from one advocating theft directly or indirectly. If one errs one can recant, and issue correction. If one cannot issue correction one can pay compensation. But in any case, in order to end up in court, one must provide another with the incentive to bring him to court, and the likelihood that such a person would prevail before a jury of one’s peers.

    5) If we can teach reading, arithmetic, mathematics, and various other skills. And if we can have taught Grammar(organizing), Logic(processing) and Rhetoric(outputting), and if we can teach formal logic then we can certainly teach truthfulness. If we can write software we can write strictly constructed law.

    6) It is a cost. The increase in the degree of suppression of parasitism is always a cost. But what was the cost of the failure of the last century to suppress the jewish art of lying in all fields (Pseudoscience) as a successor to the jewish art of lying in all fields in the ancient era (monotheistic scripturalism). And the cost of suppressing german philosophical discourse, or american postmodernism, or the innumeracy of keynesian economics? All costs are opportunity costs.

    7) Juries are exceptionally successful at stepping into the shoes of criminals. The evidence is (and there is a lot of it) that juries are exceptionally good at their job except in the most abstract of cases. Lying is not so difficult a problem to overcome.

    8) Courts already seek to identify a deception. Law is only a question if no deceptions can be found. Very few cases go to court because this is determined prior to jury.

    9) The mild randomness of the jury is an incentive to reconcile disputes prior to court.

    10) that judges do not specialize is the first problem. That lawyers cannot be prosecuted for falsehoods is the second. That we insufficiently select juries from peers is the third

    11) Producers of all goods and services must provide warranties of sufficiency and show due diligence against the externalization of harm (costs). Where political speech can produce the greatest harm of all, there is no reason not to require it be truthfully constructed.

    12) Legislation and law can be strictly constructed by the same criteria as tests of truth and this prohibits the ‘interpretation’ of the law and restores the constitution that would force the courts to return decisions to the legislature if the questions are not in fact questions of truth or law. This was the original intent of the framers, who in retrospect we can see were trying to construct a formal logic but were still to christian to do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-09 03:31:00 UTC

  • The so called european new right … as pathetic as the american generation of K

    The so called european new right … as pathetic as the american generation of Kirk.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 20:37:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707304220999995392

    Reply addressees: @SmailsHat @soapjackal @retroch

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707303394533199872

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707303394533199872

  • Con respecto a las falacias de Murray Rothbard, intelectualmente embarazosas y argumentativamente imposibles

    Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.Texto original de Curt Doolittle disponible en http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/(Tráfico de armas intelectual) (retomando la marca “Libertad” de los márgenes de los lunáticos) [L]os rothbardianos fundamentan su falaz discurso y lo esparcen por el mundo. Estas mentiras que esparcen por ahí son: a. La falacia del principio de “no agresión” como la base moral y legal de una política anárquica. b. La falacia de la agresión en vez de la necesidad de confianza c. Las falacias de los orígenes de los derechos de la propiedad como intrínsecos o aumentativos. d. La falacia de que la economía es apriorismo en vez de empírica y operacional. Y es por eso que estas falacias, que todos los seguidores de Murray Rothbard- y en la práctica-, todos los anarco-libertarios que suscriben estas mentiras-. Desgastan su capital político en ellos mismos, se distraen de actividades y esfuerzos productivos de otros, perpetúan ideas que fracasan en el mercado de la preferencia política, han materialmente dañado la marca “libertad”, y han dificultado la posibilidad de obtener libertad al confundir, desviar, y retrasarla. La ética Rothbardiana es objetivamente inmoral bajo el análisis racional, y el mercado la ha hecho inmoral por vía de la experiencia, la consideración y la intuición. Todos los movimientos hacia la libertad han girado en torno al liberalismo clásico y la ética liberal, y han decidido abiertamente estar en contra de la ética rothbardiana, a pesar de que ellos digan lo contrario. Ya que los líderes libertarios han trabajado y han desarrollado un lenguaje de secta, y se han comportado y han adquirido el carácter de una secta, han logrado aislarse de toda crítica e innovación al tener fe dogmática en estos principios; entonces la única alternativa es hacer que los argumentos esgrimidos por Rothbard y Von Mises sean intelectualmente embarazosos, y argumentativamente imposibles de usar en el discurso público, al otorgar armas a sus oponentes para derrotarlos intelectualmente. Hacer esto hará, al menos que se limite el daño que ellos pueden hacer, pero también limpiará la imagen del movimiento de la libertad y la marca “libertario” de su absurdidad cosmopolita continental, y le habrá de permitir a los liberales, a los aristócratas igualitarios, y a los proponentes del gobierno privado, que tienen en común el abogar por las sociedades de alta confianza, a regresar al discurso de la libertad racional, empírico sobre basamento histórico. CONTRARIO A LAS FALACIAS ROTHBARDIANAS Y MISESIANAS:EL PARASITISMO -parasitismo vs. derechos naturales-

    1. Al acordar cooperar, uno asume el riesgo moral de convertirse en un parásito. El parasitismo es un antagonista lógico de la cooperación. En presencia de éste, no es lógico cooperar. La propiedad surgió previa a la producción económica como una forma de prohibir el parasitismo, previa la división del trabajo y más comúnmente surgió en forma de monogamia. Los derechos de propiedad constituyen una articulación precisa, son una articulación legal positiva de la necesidad general negativa de prevenir el parasitismo para hacer que la cooperación sea una elección razonable.DERECHOS MÍNIMOS
      -mínima cantidad de derechos de propiedad-
    2. La cantidad mínima de prohibiciones necesarias al parasitismo incluyen tanto lo criminal y lo ético. con la opción negociable de lo moral. De otra manera, los costos de transacción son muy altos para que se elija lo anárquico sobre lo autoritario. Ninguna política interna de ningún tipo existe sin tener prohibiciones sobre lo criminal,  no ético e inmoral. Es posible construir políticas federativas, como lo hicieron las monarquías mediavales, en donde la cooperación entre grupos se limitó a ser de baja confianza -meramente prohibieron lo criminal- pero no es posible formar políticas voluntarias sin la prohibición de lo criminal y lo no ético, sin un juego de prohibiciones morales.
      La gente demuestra que ellos demandarán autoridad para suprimir acciones inmorales, o para exigir un comportamiento moral universal si el derecho no provee los medios de prevenir el comportamiento inmoral. (Comportamiento inmoral significa todo grupo de transferencias de costos involuntarios por medio de riesgo moral, la forma más común de parasitismo). En otras palabras, el grupo judío y los gitanos nómadas sólo pueden sobrevivir si constituyen pequeñas minorías a la merced de la voluntad de un hospedero omnipotente – lo cual fue evidente al ver cómo se comportaron las sociedades bizantinas, musulmanas, y las sociedades aristocráticas europeas. Eso no es libertad. Eso meramente una forma de tolerancia usada para reducir costsos.LA INSUFICIENCIA DEL PRINCIPIO DE NO AGRESIÓN
      -El principio de no agresión es  insuficiente para la formación de políticas voluntarias-
    3. El principio de no agresión bajo la verificación intersubjetiva sólo prohibe lo criminal pero no lo inmoral, no prohíbe lo no-ético, ni la conspiración ni los comportamientos de conquista. Es por esta razón que es una base insuficiente para la disciplina de la cooperación: ética y moralidad, y como la base de la institución de las leyes: la definición de los derechos de propiedad.En vez de ello, los derechos de propiedad deben dirigirse hacia todos los conflictos morales y éticos que son necesarios para eliminar la demanda del mercado para que haya intervención autoritaria. Y ya que todos los argumentos morales objetivos y las definiciones correspondientes de propiedad consisten en transferencias involuntarias que violan la prohibición del parasitismo, no se pueden construir argumentos libertarios contra ello.A menos que el enfoque de las prohibiciones sea suficiente, los costos de transacción establecen que la demanda para que el estado exista sea preferible a la demanda para la “libertad”. Mientras haya mercado para el estado, éste existirá.IGNORAR LA CONFIANZA
      -El grado de confianza determina la velocidad económica: riqueza-.
    4.  Los derechos de propiedad, seguros y extensivos que suprimen el parasitismo, de modo tal que son requeridos para contribuir a la producción en vez de sobrevivir a costa del parasitismo, crean confianza: La habilidad de asumir riesgos, y de incrementar la velocidad de producción e intercambios al reducir los costos de transacción.
      El nivel de confianza corresponde directamente al grado de supresión de parasitismo creado por el enfoque de la prohibición de los derechos de propiedad, ejecutables por medio de las leyes.
      La velocidad económica de una economía corresponde directamente al grado de confianza formada en un sistema político por el cumplimiento legal de los derechos de propiedad.CONSTRUCTIVISMO FRACASADO
      -El legado de Von Mises yace en su fracaso al producir un argumento constructivista-
    5. A finales del siglo XIX, surgió un movimiento que buscó prevenir la expansión emergente de una forma de misticismo lógico (platonismo) con varios nombres: la matemática intuitiva y constructivista, la operatividad en las ciencias, varios movimientos lingüísticos en la lógica, y la praxeología misesiana en la economía.Todos estos movimientos correctamente intuyeron algún tipo de problema con el concepto platónico de la verdad, pero fracasaron en lograr dar con la falla fundamental. Esto es por el hecho que la prueba constructiva, la comprobación correspondiente y el endurecimiento correspondiente (pruebas de falseo) no fueron entendidas ni comprendidas como prohibiciones éticas sobre afirmaciones honestas y certeras. – Y esa verdad se basa en desempeño.
      Que el acto del testimonio requiera de demostración de que puede ser construido (consistencia interna), demuestra que existe conocimiento de construcción, sumado a correspondencia (correspondencia externa que demuestra conocimiento de uso), e intento de falsificación (que es demostrar el conocimiento de la durabilidad).
      Mises intuyó correctamente, como intelectuales en otras disciplinas y campos, que había algo errado con la obra de economistas positivistas (correlativo, pero no causal). Pero fracasó en aprehender que la praxeología es un problema de observación empírica, reducción a operaciones, comprobar esas operaciones por medio de la prueba de la experiencia, antes de que uno haga una afirmación sobre cualquier fenómeno económico.Mises simplemente fracasó, fracasó peor que los que abogan por la operatividad y la intuición, que sólo fracasaron por superar objeciones. Pero su fracaso fue compuesto por el hecho de que el había identificado correctamente le problema de la verdad puesta a prueba por su desempeño – que la restricción sobre las afirmaciones económicas son testimoniales (se basan en decir la verdad), en vez de deducción por primeros principios, que es posible que los líderes de otros campos hayan entendido su predicamento y que han correctamente distinguido entre la verdad puesta a prueba por su desempeño, la verdad constructiva, la verdad correspondiente, y la verdad final.

      ÉTICO Y EMPÍRICO, NO LÓGICO


      -La praxeología es una restricción tanto ética como empírica-




    6. Como tal, la praxeología, si la llevamos a acciones (racionales), cooperaciones (ética) o economía ( la organización voluntaria de la producción) es un proceso científico como todos los otros procesos epistémicos, donde hacemos observaciones, construimos una teoría, la ponemos a prueba, la falsificamos para ver si pasa la prueba de la durabilidad, ponemos a prueba nuestro conocimiento de ocnstrucción para probar que puede ser construída, y testificamos de que tenemos pruebas de su correspondencia, falsificación, construcción y por ende poseemos el derecho ético a hacer una afirmación verdadera.


      Una vez que hayamos hecho ese clamor, tenemos una teoría-. Si nosotros, como especialistas, no tenemos la posibilidad de falsificarla, entonces tenemos una ley.


      Todos los conceptos empíricos deben seguir este proceso. Toda la innovación tecnológica debe seguir este proceso. Todos los actos de producción deben seguir este proceso. Toda la búsqueda de conocimiento debe seguir este proceso.


      (Nota: No estoy seguro si la falsificación es una prueba de parsimonia o no. Yo pienso que puede ser la terminología correcta – o algo muy cercano a ello).


      LA REFUNDICIÓN DE LO TEÓRICO Y LO CIENTÍFICO


      -La refundición de la ciencia teóricamente descriptiva con la lógica axiomáticamente perceptiva-




    7. La refundición de los sistemas teóricos que están limitados en su correspondencia con la realidad, y los sistemas axiomáticos que están limitados sólo a sus afirmaciones.- Los sistemas teóricos consisten de afirmaciones *perceptivas*, no atadas a la realidad. Von Mises dice que la economía es tanto apriorística como axiomática y científica-  esto es por definición- una afirmación pseudocientífica, ya que la definición de una ciencia es aquella que se adhiere al método científico.


      Se pueden construir modelos por medio de afirmaciones axiomáticas, pero cualquier correspondencia con la realidad requiere de que aceptemos que esas afirmaciones axiomáticas constituyan analogías a descripciones teóricas cuya base es siempre empírica-


      FALACIA DEL APRIORISMO VS EMPIRISMO


      -El análisis del comportamiento humano es una búsqueda empírica-




    8. La praxeología (estudio de la acción), la lógica de la cooperación (el estudio de la ética) y la economía (el estudio de la organización voluntaria de la producción) cumplen con los criterios de ser ciencias empíricas, las cuales, bajo observación cuidadadosa, podemos reducirlas a hipótesis, teoría y leyes.


      Y con estas leyes se pueden construir axiomas, para usarlos en modelos, que funcionan como instrumentos lógicos que nos permiten contemplar lo que nuestras habilidades cognitivas no pueden contemplar sin el uso de instrumentos lógicos variados: lenguaje, narrativa, operatividad, lógica, números y matemáticas.


      CONSTANCIA DE LAS RELACIONES VS PRECISIÓN ARBITRARIA




    9. Mientras las relaciones cooperativas son inconstantes, y discutiblemente cada acción es única, los patrones de las relaciones no son inconstantes y únicos, y porque la distribución de la información es caótica, la información, los incentivos y las acciones (cambios en el estado) se distribuyen orgánicamente y evolucionan a distintas velocidades. Por ello podemos predecir patrones en tendencias, pero no acciones individuales, y no lo podemos hacer  de la misma forma que no podemos predecir la posición de cualquier entidad física a un nivel subatómico.


      No se puede predecir aquello que no sea sino una probabilidad en un momento dado, y esto no lo hace inobservable o no científico. Sólo es necesario demostrar que de hecho, existe cierta regularidad a un nivel determinado de precisión en un período de tiempo dado.


      Esto es lo que deermina si una afirmación deductiva se puede expresar como una hipótesis, teoría o ley: si podemos determinar algún tipo de regularidad por medio del uso de alguna escala – algún nivel de precisión- La precisión infinita no es posible, pero un estándar de precisión de máxima utilidad se puede obtener si se usa un nivel mínimo de regularidad que observe y describa.


      Esto constituye “el problema de la precisión arbitraria”: Las reglas generales (teorías) requiere que adoptemos el nivel disponible de precisión. La matemática pura usa precisión completamente arbitraria, lo cual hace que sea posible que ella use escalas de forma infinita. Pero una vez que aplicamos las reglas matemáticas a cualquier descripción de la realidad en particular, incluimos de forma necesaria un nivel de precisión en ese contexto. Al revisar la válvula de una máquina, al serruchar un tablón, navegar un barco, navegar a escala interplanetaria, y al medir la distancia entre nosotros y el objeto más lejano, se requieren distintos niveles de precisión. Y eso no sólo quiere decir que no podemos desempeñar esas operaciones usando las mismas matemáticas- Meramente significa que debemos aplicar la precisión en un contexto determinado.


      EL ENFOQUE DE LAS LEYES DE NEWTON




    10. Las leyes de Newton, por ejemplo, de la geometría, permanecen constantes en una escala humana. Pero a escalas muy grandes y muy pequeñas, debido a los problemas de la velocidad y lo difícil de la medición, estas reglas fallan. No hay afirmaciones universales expresables como operaciones que no sean falacias ad reductio. Todas las hipótesis, teorías y leyes son sujeto de incrementos en precisión o pérdida de utilidad por reemplazo con otras teorías, hipótesis y leyes.


      LO IMPREDECIBLE DE LOS GASES




    11. No podemos predecir la trayectoria de una molécula al liberar un gas, pero eso no quiere decir que no podamos predecir la distribución promedio de las moléculas al liberar un gas y su tasa de dispersión.


      LA NEUTRALIDAD DEL DINERO




    12. Nosotros argüimos que el dinero es neutral, pero sólo durante períodos impredecibles y largos de tiempo. ¿Es esto una pregunta empírica o una pregunta lógica? Podemos deducirla, y parece lógica, pero sólo si nuestra evidencia es suficiente para considerarla una ley, hipótesis o teoría. Actualmente es meramente una hipótesis. Pero ciertamente la neutralidad del dinero no es ninguna ley.


      EL SALARIO MÍNIMO




    13. Se arguye que el salario mínimo aumenta el desempleo-. ¿Es ésta una afirmación lógica o empírica? El salario mínimo no incrementa el desempleo de todos aquellos que ya tengan un empleo, y sólo ocurre durante períodos impredecibles de tiempo.


      FENÓMENO EMERGENTE: LA ESTABILIDAD DE LOS PRECIOS




    14. No deducimos que los precios estén tan estables como lo están- Lo descubrimos de forma empírica por medio de la observación. ¿Es esta estabilidad de los precios suficiente para cumplir con el estándar de la hipótesis, teoría o ley? Actualmente es una teoría ampliamente aceptada.


      LA NO DEDUCIBILIDAD DE UN FENÓMENO EMERGENTE




    15. No podemos deducir ni hemos deducido fenómenos económicos emergentes. Podemos validar propuestas económicas deductivamente al reducirlas a una serie de acciones, cada una de la cuales es sujeto a experiencia y como tal, abierta a una prueba subjetiva de racionalidad. Pero eso también es una prueba empírica. Nosotros observamos y sentimos nuestras reacciones.


      ARGUMENTACIÓN


      La falacia de la ética de la argumentación




    16. La ética de la argumentación es falaz porque la elección de lo que es fuerte siempre está entre el uso de la violencia y lo que uno desea, o el valor del intercambio voluntario o el boicot de acciones inútiles.


      La elección humana siempre es ternaria: violencia, cooperación o boicot, y nunca, bajo ninguna condición, se reduce a la elección binaria de cooperación o boicot – la argumentación contradictoria es una falacia ya que acordar cooperar temporalmente en un enfoque dado es un algo meramente utilitario y no da con algo más que el asunto en cuestión.


      Mientras que, en un contrato de cooperación se fundamenta en la apuesta de que la cooperación a largo plazo será más beneficiosa, incluso si resulta en numerosas ganancias y pérdidas.


      Numerosos autores han dicho cosas similares en términos no operativos. Pero la operatividad nos dice que la argumentación es vacía – porque nunca dejamos por fuera el uso de la violencia y como tal, entramos en una contradicción que meramente demuestra una preferencia.


      Curt Doolittle


      La filosofía de la aristocracias


      El Instituto Propietarista


      Kiev, Ucrania