Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Paul Krugman: Slow Roasting the West in Keynesian Ovens

    (trigger warning)(run with this meme) [P]aul; It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading, framing and overloading them with moral falsehoods. You advocate institutional lying: the Keynesian economics of distorting the information system we use to cooperate so that we consume rather than accumulate capital; and you advocate theft on an epic scale: redistribution in lieu of voluntary exchanges between classes so that we accumulate normative capital rather than government scale. So I’m not saying you’re wrong – you do manage to state half truths. I’m saying you’re a lying, immoral fraud, a racist and a genocidalist. Putting people in ovens instead of showers is evil, immoral and dishonest. Putting people in economic and political ovens instead is just doing the same by slower means. I mean, you’re just a better liar, but you’re doing the same thing: genocide by lying.

    Curt Doolittle (No way outta that box Paul. You’re done. Time to hang up the keyboard.)

  • Putting Another Misesian To Bed

    —“I generally do not follow socialistic thinking processes such as the concept of trade between groups. Methodological individualism is, to me, the way to go, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out. So I am sorry I cannot agree with this analysis. Individuals trade, and individuals act. This idea of a group having some kind of living reality jump straight out of Plato and was debunked back in the Middle Ages by the philosophers called nominalists.”— Lawrence

    [W]ell, you have to create an argument other than ‘the way to go’. Because that’s not an argument. it’s an expression of taste. 

    Individuals cooperate. They form families. They form friendships. They form cooperative alliances. They form partnerships, corporations, armies, and nations. So empirically, that is what people do. And praxeologically we can easily explain why it is in their interest to do so. And we can explain praxeologicaly why it is against their interest not to do so. Groups who cooperate out-compete groups that do not cooperate. Universally. And the higher the trust, the more truth, the faster the rate of economic and inventive velocity. The more competitive the group. The west has successfully out-competed other groups precisely because we produced commons. Including the commons of property rights, rule of law, the common law, the militia, and truth telling. Even science was produced as a commons. There are productive commons, and parasitic commons. it matters only whether the commons is productive (moral) or parasitic (immoral). A commons is, like violence, value neutral. Commons and violence can be use to create productivity or they can be used for purposes of parasitism. So not only is cooperation at scale, and the production of commons methodologically individualistic, but it fails the test of methodological individualism to suggest people not seize the opportunity to cooperate to produce returns unachievable by individual action. Cooperation exists and moral intuition exists to preserve cooperation, for the simple reason that the rewards of cooperation are disproportionately higher than the rewards of individual production. So the only question is whether you can voluntarily participate and exit such commons, and if you have universal standing in defense from parasitism. If so, then only productive commons can be constructed. This is what we call the Civic Society. But if you don’t participate, why will members of that Civic Society tolerate your presence? They usually don’t. So you can’t be right. Praxeologically you can’t be right. Just how it is. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (London).

  • Putting Another Misesian To Bed

    —“I generally do not follow socialistic thinking processes such as the concept of trade between groups. Methodological individualism is, to me, the way to go, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out. So I am sorry I cannot agree with this analysis. Individuals trade, and individuals act. This idea of a group having some kind of living reality jump straight out of Plato and was debunked back in the Middle Ages by the philosophers called nominalists.”— Lawrence

    [W]ell, you have to create an argument other than ‘the way to go’. Because that’s not an argument. it’s an expression of taste. 

    Individuals cooperate. They form families. They form friendships. They form cooperative alliances. They form partnerships, corporations, armies, and nations. So empirically, that is what people do. And praxeologically we can easily explain why it is in their interest to do so. And we can explain praxeologicaly why it is against their interest not to do so. Groups who cooperate out-compete groups that do not cooperate. Universally. And the higher the trust, the more truth, the faster the rate of economic and inventive velocity. The more competitive the group. The west has successfully out-competed other groups precisely because we produced commons. Including the commons of property rights, rule of law, the common law, the militia, and truth telling. Even science was produced as a commons. There are productive commons, and parasitic commons. it matters only whether the commons is productive (moral) or parasitic (immoral). A commons is, like violence, value neutral. Commons and violence can be use to create productivity or they can be used for purposes of parasitism. So not only is cooperation at scale, and the production of commons methodologically individualistic, but it fails the test of methodological individualism to suggest people not seize the opportunity to cooperate to produce returns unachievable by individual action. Cooperation exists and moral intuition exists to preserve cooperation, for the simple reason that the rewards of cooperation are disproportionately higher than the rewards of individual production. So the only question is whether you can voluntarily participate and exit such commons, and if you have universal standing in defense from parasitism. If so, then only productive commons can be constructed. This is what we call the Civic Society. But if you don’t participate, why will members of that Civic Society tolerate your presence? They usually don’t. So you can’t be right. Praxeologically you can’t be right. Just how it is. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (London).

  • End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    [W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….

  • End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    [W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….

  • PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS (run with this meme) Paul; It’s not

    PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS

    (run with this meme)

    Paul; It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading and framing and overloading them with moral falsehoods. You advocate institutional lying: the Keynesian economics of distorting the information system we use to cooperate so that we consume rather than accumulate capital; and you advocate theft on an epic scale: redistribution in lieu of voluntary exchanges between classes so that we accumulate normative capital rather than government scale. So I’m not saying you’re wrong – you do manage to state half truths. I’m saying you’re a lying, immoral, fraud, a racist and a genocidalist. Putting people in ovens instead of showers is immoral and dishonest. Putting people in economic and political ovens instead is just doing the same by slower means. I mean, you’re just a better liar, but you’re doing the same thing. Genocide by lying.

    Curt Doolittle

    (No way outta that box Paul. You’re done.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 06:08:00 UTC

  • THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS. —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someon

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    Well, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense.

    (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon.

    (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable.

    (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof

    (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits.

    (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements).

    (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content.

    (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content.

    We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever.

    We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us.

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth.

    Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining.

    Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion.

    Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) but we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet, because we do not know them – although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can.

    Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on.

    I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on.

    I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on.

    The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history.

    The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms. through the definitions of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life.

    There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty.

    Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others.

    Now you can go run to hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them.

    What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit.

    Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over.

    Welcome to the new age.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-18 15:21:00 UTC

  • BLOCKS VK’S ATHEISTS Um. I don’t really get this. Atheists are often an annoying

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jul-13/306474-russia-blocks-atheist-webpage-over-insulting-believers.ashxRUSSIA BLOCKS VK’S ATHEISTS

    Um. I don’t really get this. Atheists are often an annoying bunch, but they’re as easily ignored as are the muslims and christians and jews, and… everyone else.

    The interesting bit is that the action was not requested by the Orthodox church, but by the Chechen Muslims.

    Russia will go Muslim before the west does.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 07:51:00 UTC

  • What Is The Significance Of Jean Baudrillardâ´s For A Critique Of The Political Economy Of The Sign?

    As an activist philosopher engaged in restoring modernism I see Baudrillard’s work as one of the death rattles of postmodernism.  

    But that does not mean that it is not possible to restate some of his ideas in ratio-scientific terms.  And that is, that as we grow in prosperity, our patterns of consumption changes from survival, to risk reduction, to fulfillment, to purely signaling.  And that much of the consumer economy consists of little more than signaling. 

    Unfortunately, by couching his thought in postmodern pseudoscience, empty verbalism,  and pretense of reason, he doomed his contributions to the dustbin of history along with all of marxism.

    The more interesting question is when does such signaling become lying?  When are signals of falsehoods occurring at the expense of material improvement of life?

    That’s a problem I haven’t spent much time on, but I think it’s the scientific means of exploring his ideas.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Jean-Baudrillard´s-For-a-Critique-of-the-Political-Economy-of-the-Sign

  • Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

     [A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

    –“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

     

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

     

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine