Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Does Walter Block Represent The Mindset Of Most Libertarians?

    In the sense that Walter Block advocates the Non Aggression Principle (the “NAP”), as did Murray Rothbard; and in the sense that most self identified libertarians have also adopted the NAP – then, yes, he reflects a common libertine-libertarian rational justification of the common libertine-libertarian moral sentiment.

    However, the liberal libertarians (the classical liberals) – meaning the non-libertine libertarians, do not accept that the NAP is a sufficient moral or legal principle for the formation of a stateless polity with a minimum government. Or even that if it was sufficient that such criteria would be classifiable or interpreted as moral by anyone outside of the libertine-libertarian minority.

    Identifying as a Cosmopolitan Rothbardian libertine-libertarian, rather than an Anglo-Empirical classical-liberal libertarian, is a matter of justifying your emotional intuitions. Which is why most libertine libertarians demonstrate anti-social behaviors, such as justifying blackmail, and justifying externalities caused by deception, and externalities caused by hedonistic behavior; while most classical liberal libertarians demonstrate positive social behaviors such as commons-building, norms as a corporeal asset,  and reputation as a property right.
     
    We, all of us, (me included), work to justify our moral intuitions, because our moral intuitions reflect our reproductive strategy.   And so why has Rothbardianism failed as an American political movement: because very few people can morally tolerate the rothbardian levels of unethical and immoral behavior unless they  also possess anti-social personalities.
     
    Rothbrdian libertinism has its origin in the urban ghettos, and as such it discounts externalities, physical commons, and normative commons and instead adopts the socio-pathological justification that we should not pay for commons whether physical or normative, and that we are not responsible for the externalities caused by our behavior.  In other words, rothbardian libertarianism is unethical and immoral – factually, independent of anyone’s opinion.

    Just to clarify that this dispute between Libertine-liberarians, and Moral-Libertarians is more than a problem of psychologism – and that it has taken great effort for libertines to construct an intricate pseudo-sceientific and pseudo-rational ideology – lets look at the counter-factual but complex arguments that the libertine-libertarians rely upon.

    (a) In all but the most rare exceptions, self-identified libertarians do not understand the relationship between Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) and the NAP’s dependence upon IVP, or that such a relationship is a necessary property of the NAP, and without some definition of property such as IVP, the NAP is meaningless;

    (b) Nor that the reason self-identified libertarians cannot come to consensus is not the nap, but the sufficiency of IVP for the decidability of moral propositions, or as the basis for law sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity;

    (c) in addition,  research suggests that self-identified libertarians appear to be searching for confirmation of their moral intuitions (see Haidt), and that libertarianism is a narrow moral specialization (Haidt); and that just as progressives are severely morally blind, libertarians are merely less morally blind (Haidt) and therefore underestimate the importance of norms nearly as much as progressives underestimate the importance of both norms and economic incentives;

    (d) combined with the difference between the use of NAP as a moral principle, versus the NAP under IVP as a legal basis for polycentric organically evolutionary common law,  combined with whether the NAP under IVP the basis for a common law is sufficient for a voluntary polity to form and persist, because such a body of law suppresses transaction costs sufficiently for people to rationally choose an anarchic over a statist polity;

    (e) combined with the low trust, and therefore low velocity of production and trade that can occur within a voluntary polity under the NAP/ISV as the basis of common law, providing negative economic incentives;

    (f) combined with the historical record’s demonstration that all low trust polities are subject to ostracization, tariffs, persecution, punishment, war and extermination by higher trust polities – in all circumstances;

     – all of which lead us to the conclusion that Rothbardian libertine-libertarianism is an unscientific, non-rational, impossible, complex verbalism, that confirms the moral intuitions of a small group of moral specialists; and an constitutes not a rational philosophy, but merely a body of arguments are sufficient for use as an ideology that assists in the formation of a cult-of-resistance against the state.

    But this ideology is not sufficiently rational or scientific for use as a moral and religious, or secular-legal, institutional means upon which to base a voluntarily organized society, that makes use of the voluntary organization of production (capitalism),  in the absence of an authority (the state); in which the authority imposes rules of conduct, and/or, prevents retaliation for unethical and immoral actions that are not resolvable in a court of such laws.

    CONTEXT OF THE LIBERTINE VS LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENTS
    The Moral-Anglo-Libertarian movement, and the Libertine-Austrian-libertarian movement, are divided by the backgrounds of primary authors, into the Christian Enlightenment ethical system (classical liberal and Hayekian and Hosperian Libertarian), and the Jewish Cosmopolitan ethic (Misesian Cosmopolitan, and Rothbardian libertinism).  IN addition, as a mini-reformation,  Hoppe attempts to transform the Jewish Cosmopolitan ethic and system of thought, into the german rationalist ethic and system of thought. Both the jewish cosmopolitan and german rational systems of though, were proposed as alternatives to the anglo-empirical system of thought.  The long-standing reason for this opposition between anglo, german and jewish, is couched as the difference between empirically dominated thought and rationally dominated thought (a technical argument in philosophy between empiricism and rationalism).  However this is an artificial distinction. The reason Germans and Jews prefer rationalism is that the philosophy of German civilization and Jewish civilizations are hierarchical in the case of german, and authoritarian in the case of the jews. 

    At present, only Walter Block and Lou Rockwell advocate the Rothbardian libertine position in full. Others emphasize largely the economic aspects of libertine-libertarianism, not the moral.  Walter Block advocates what he argues as the morality of traditionally immoral topics.  The presumption of his ethical position is that individuals are not responsible for externalities (the opposite of the christian position) and that norms in any polity are not constructed as, produced as, maintained as, and used as, an institutional commons. 

    Hoppe by contrast argues in favor of a contractually explicit commons, not that the NAP is morally sufficient, or legally sufficient (as I understand him) for the formation of a voluntary polity.  Hoppe merely assumes that desirable human behavior will evolve if given the opportunity – not that property was forced upon people, outbreeding was forced upon them,  delayed marriage was forced up on them,  rule of law was forced upon them, and the competitive market was forced upon them – by aristocracy.

    BLOCK AS SPECIALIST IN IMMORALITY

    Block has written a number of books now that advocate unethical and immoral activity as individually beneficial – without acknowledging that all criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, parasitic behavior is beneficial to individuals or small groups.  That does not answer the question of why moral groups should cooperate with immoral groups, or should not conquer, enslave, or kill immoral groups, since cooperate is irrational if all it means is another group can engage in parasitism against your group.  

    So in this sense, Block represents the position of anti-social libertines in the libertine-libertarian movement who hold to the immoral and unethical the body of thought, that originated in the application of ghetto ethics to german continental moral philosophy, as a reaction against the anglo-enlightenment-libertarianism’s universalism. 

    SUMMARY
    So while most libertine-libertarians, and many moral-libertarians, refer in some way or another to the NAP, in all cases the cross-cultural consensus is meaningless as other than a simple signal of group membership – like a secret handshake, or mason’s ring, or religious jewelry or clothing – because the NAP is merely a recognition of the fact that libertarians dislike state aggression against them, not because the NAP is a sufficient rule for any political, moral, or legal purpose.

    So while Walter is the leading figure in libertinism, that is largely because libertines are justifying empathic, non-rational, sentimental approval of arguments that they clearly do not understand, and whose value to them, is that the are sufficiently complex to mirror the reflects of religious texts: that they are extremely difficult to refute, and they justify the speaker’s moral sentiments. Not because they are rationally complete, scientifically demonstrable or demonstrated, or sufficient for legally basis or morally foundation.

    That’s enough for now.  Although I should probably continue.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Walter-Block-represent-the-mindset-of-most-libertarians

  • Does Walter Block Represent The Mindset Of Most Libertarians?

    In the sense that Walter Block advocates the Non Aggression Principle (the “NAP”), as did Murray Rothbard; and in the sense that most self identified libertarians have also adopted the NAP – then, yes, he reflects a common libertine-libertarian rational justification of the common libertine-libertarian moral sentiment.

    However, the liberal libertarians (the classical liberals) – meaning the non-libertine libertarians, do not accept that the NAP is a sufficient moral or legal principle for the formation of a stateless polity with a minimum government. Or even that if it was sufficient that such criteria would be classifiable or interpreted as moral by anyone outside of the libertine-libertarian minority.

    Identifying as a Cosmopolitan Rothbardian libertine-libertarian, rather than an Anglo-Empirical classical-liberal libertarian, is a matter of justifying your emotional intuitions. Which is why most libertine libertarians demonstrate anti-social behaviors, such as justifying blackmail, and justifying externalities caused by deception, and externalities caused by hedonistic behavior; while most classical liberal libertarians demonstrate positive social behaviors such as commons-building, norms as a corporeal asset,  and reputation as a property right.
     
    We, all of us, (me included), work to justify our moral intuitions, because our moral intuitions reflect our reproductive strategy.   And so why has Rothbardianism failed as an American political movement: because very few people can morally tolerate the rothbardian levels of unethical and immoral behavior unless they  also possess anti-social personalities.
     
    Rothbrdian libertinism has its origin in the urban ghettos, and as such it discounts externalities, physical commons, and normative commons and instead adopts the socio-pathological justification that we should not pay for commons whether physical or normative, and that we are not responsible for the externalities caused by our behavior.  In other words, rothbardian libertarianism is unethical and immoral – factually, independent of anyone’s opinion.

    Just to clarify that this dispute between Libertine-liberarians, and Moral-Libertarians is more than a problem of psychologism – and that it has taken great effort for libertines to construct an intricate pseudo-sceientific and pseudo-rational ideology – lets look at the counter-factual but complex arguments that the libertine-libertarians rely upon.

    (a) In all but the most rare exceptions, self-identified libertarians do not understand the relationship between Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) and the NAP’s dependence upon IVP, or that such a relationship is a necessary property of the NAP, and without some definition of property such as IVP, the NAP is meaningless;

    (b) Nor that the reason self-identified libertarians cannot come to consensus is not the nap, but the sufficiency of IVP for the decidability of moral propositions, or as the basis for law sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity;

    (c) in addition,  research suggests that self-identified libertarians appear to be searching for confirmation of their moral intuitions (see Haidt), and that libertarianism is a narrow moral specialization (Haidt); and that just as progressives are severely morally blind, libertarians are merely less morally blind (Haidt) and therefore underestimate the importance of norms nearly as much as progressives underestimate the importance of both norms and economic incentives;

    (d) combined with the difference between the use of NAP as a moral principle, versus the NAP under IVP as a legal basis for polycentric organically evolutionary common law,  combined with whether the NAP under IVP the basis for a common law is sufficient for a voluntary polity to form and persist, because such a body of law suppresses transaction costs sufficiently for people to rationally choose an anarchic over a statist polity;

    (e) combined with the low trust, and therefore low velocity of production and trade that can occur within a voluntary polity under the NAP/ISV as the basis of common law, providing negative economic incentives;

    (f) combined with the historical record’s demonstration that all low trust polities are subject to ostracization, tariffs, persecution, punishment, war and extermination by higher trust polities – in all circumstances;

     – all of which lead us to the conclusion that Rothbardian libertine-libertarianism is an unscientific, non-rational, impossible, complex verbalism, that confirms the moral intuitions of a small group of moral specialists; and an constitutes not a rational philosophy, but merely a body of arguments are sufficient for use as an ideology that assists in the formation of a cult-of-resistance against the state.

    But this ideology is not sufficiently rational or scientific for use as a moral and religious, or secular-legal, institutional means upon which to base a voluntarily organized society, that makes use of the voluntary organization of production (capitalism),  in the absence of an authority (the state); in which the authority imposes rules of conduct, and/or, prevents retaliation for unethical and immoral actions that are not resolvable in a court of such laws.

    CONTEXT OF THE LIBERTINE VS LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENTS
    The Moral-Anglo-Libertarian movement, and the Libertine-Austrian-libertarian movement, are divided by the backgrounds of primary authors, into the Christian Enlightenment ethical system (classical liberal and Hayekian and Hosperian Libertarian), and the Jewish Cosmopolitan ethic (Misesian Cosmopolitan, and Rothbardian libertinism).  IN addition, as a mini-reformation,  Hoppe attempts to transform the Jewish Cosmopolitan ethic and system of thought, into the german rationalist ethic and system of thought. Both the jewish cosmopolitan and german rational systems of though, were proposed as alternatives to the anglo-empirical system of thought.  The long-standing reason for this opposition between anglo, german and jewish, is couched as the difference between empirically dominated thought and rationally dominated thought (a technical argument in philosophy between empiricism and rationalism).  However this is an artificial distinction. The reason Germans and Jews prefer rationalism is that the philosophy of German civilization and Jewish civilizations are hierarchical in the case of german, and authoritarian in the case of the jews. 

    At present, only Walter Block and Lou Rockwell advocate the Rothbardian libertine position in full. Others emphasize largely the economic aspects of libertine-libertarianism, not the moral.  Walter Block advocates what he argues as the morality of traditionally immoral topics.  The presumption of his ethical position is that individuals are not responsible for externalities (the opposite of the christian position) and that norms in any polity are not constructed as, produced as, maintained as, and used as, an institutional commons. 

    Hoppe by contrast argues in favor of a contractually explicit commons, not that the NAP is morally sufficient, or legally sufficient (as I understand him) for the formation of a voluntary polity.  Hoppe merely assumes that desirable human behavior will evolve if given the opportunity – not that property was forced upon people, outbreeding was forced upon them,  delayed marriage was forced up on them,  rule of law was forced upon them, and the competitive market was forced upon them – by aristocracy.

    BLOCK AS SPECIALIST IN IMMORALITY

    Block has written a number of books now that advocate unethical and immoral activity as individually beneficial – without acknowledging that all criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, parasitic behavior is beneficial to individuals or small groups.  That does not answer the question of why moral groups should cooperate with immoral groups, or should not conquer, enslave, or kill immoral groups, since cooperate is irrational if all it means is another group can engage in parasitism against your group.  

    So in this sense, Block represents the position of anti-social libertines in the libertine-libertarian movement who hold to the immoral and unethical the body of thought, that originated in the application of ghetto ethics to german continental moral philosophy, as a reaction against the anglo-enlightenment-libertarianism’s universalism. 

    SUMMARY
    So while most libertine-libertarians, and many moral-libertarians, refer in some way or another to the NAP, in all cases the cross-cultural consensus is meaningless as other than a simple signal of group membership – like a secret handshake, or mason’s ring, or religious jewelry or clothing – because the NAP is merely a recognition of the fact that libertarians dislike state aggression against them, not because the NAP is a sufficient rule for any political, moral, or legal purpose.

    So while Walter is the leading figure in libertinism, that is largely because libertines are justifying empathic, non-rational, sentimental approval of arguments that they clearly do not understand, and whose value to them, is that the are sufficiently complex to mirror the reflects of religious texts: that they are extremely difficult to refute, and they justify the speaker’s moral sentiments. Not because they are rationally complete, scientifically demonstrable or demonstrated, or sufficient for legally basis or morally foundation.

    That’s enough for now.  Although I should probably continue.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Walter-Block-represent-the-mindset-of-most-libertarians

  • AGAIN – IT”S NOT THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND… ABANDON RATIONALISM AND LEAVE CHILDH

    AGAIN – IT”S NOT THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND… ABANDON RATIONALISM AND LEAVE CHILDHOOD BEHIND.

    —“If I understand Curt’s argument orrectly, operationalism has a long history in Austrian economics. Hayek called it scientism, Mises called it panphysicalism and posivism, and Menger called a version of it “The Historical Point of View in Economic Research.”—

    Not quite. if mises had correctly understood the difference between logic and science, he would have understood that he was attempting in economics what had been done in physics and mathematics, and that his praxeology was a failed attempt to state operationalism in the context of economics. Instead he mistakenly denied that economics must be practiced empirically and tested operationally to know if in fact, economic theories were internally consistent, because they consisted entirely of rational actions. However instead he misunderstood the properties of axiomatic systems, and declared economics axiomatic, rather than theoretic. He probably made this mistake because he failed to grasp the problem of arbitrary precision in the construction of general rules. I know his work very well, and Mises was not sophisticated in these matters.

    If you want to read, you can, in the SEP, on Operationalism, Operationism, Intuitionism, Reverse Russian Mathematics, and the problems of decidability as well as that of the debate between the various factions that resulted in the current state of theory in mathematics.

    —“No Austrian to my knowledge has argued that operationalism and economic reasoning are equivalent or that one is superior to the other. Instead, the argument made by the Austrians is Methodological Dualism.”—

    Well I know that, but it just means that they’re wrong, and have been proven wrong by subsequent events. The difference between the social sciences and the physical sciences is only in that the decidability of all social (economic) propositions is ascertainable by subjective experience. In other words, given proximately equal knowledge, we can empathize with any economic statement, and determine whether what a rational actor would do. This is required for humans to understand intent, and understanding intent is required for cooperation. Lastly human incentives except at the margins are marginally indifferent. So for these reasons all propositions are decidable by man. Tn other words, we know the first cause, at some level of precision, of all human action. Whereas in the physical science we are unable to rely on mere sense perception or sympathy for the purpose of decidability. All human knowledge regardless of context is theoretical, because all human knowledge is that is non-tautological must be hypothetical. Since all axiomatic statements are by and of necessity tautological, then they are useful for the purpose of modeling within some specified precision, where such precision is determined by the utility of the action (context.)

    —“It seems to me that he is confused about Austrian economics.”—

    As you can see, quite not. There are a few men living that can debate me on this subject and I know them, and they know me. ( And they aren’t fans. )

    —“Curt seems to rely totally on the post-Misesian ethics of Murray Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalist as a source for his understanding of Austrian economics.”—

    Not sure where you are getting that idea from. If you were to restate that as that I am trying to expose and refute the rothbardians, and that mises’ errors were compounded by Rothbard for his ideological purposes, and that if we were to restate mises as I have as merely a visionary but failed operationalist, then I would agree with all that.

    —“He neglects the tension between the anarcho-capitalists and other writers who label themselves Austrian economists. He particularly neglects the pre-Rothbardians, Hayek and Mises.”—

    I actually state (as does even wikipedia) that the Misesian program is not ‘austrian’, but cosmopolitan, and it is the cosmopolitan program that has been discredited, and that the original Austrian program has been fully incorporated into current economics, save for the still open dispute over the business cycle; and that just as rothbard (somewhat dishonestly) appropriated the term libertarian, the rothbardians have appropriated the term “Austrian” through successful propagandizing. So successfully that the classical liberals (namely the team at GMU), as well as the the think tanks other than the rothbardian advertising machine (mises.or) have had to distance themselves from the term. (A fact which the GMU crowd laments now and then.)

    —“I deny that the rationalist program demonstrated success in philosophy,” I don’t think that anyone ever claimed that Austrian critiques had much success in philosophy. On the contrary, in his introduction the Human Action, Mises denies that the new economics, [which, in my opinion had, up that time, been best expressed by the Austrian economist], had influenced philosophers.”—

    Probably my fault but I cannot see the the connection between my statement and your response. Sorry. I didn’t claim that Austrian critiques had success in philosophy, I claimed that rationalism (in Kantian, broader german, and cosmopolitan, and therefore Misesian form) has proven to be a vehicle for dishonesty, and error. I don’t argue that Mises was dishonest, I argue he was wrong, because the problem was a very hard one. It’s rothbard I’m not sure about.

    —“the capacity of humans to perceive, remember, compare, and judge is extremely limited”— >”This general statement does not apply to the geniuses. “—

    You are kidding right? Up here in the rarified air we all rely on numbers, the narrative, pencil and paper, the need for cartesian representation…. I really don’t know where you’re getting that from… Furthermore it’s disprovable by Mises rather absurd errors alone, or by Poincare’s failure to eliminate the frame of reference, even though he had correctly understood the consequence of the Lorenz transformations. I mean… where do I start? We can measure it. It’s simple. …

    —“But that is not the important point. I wrote “You deny that distinctly human minds have a logical structure. The logical structure is simple and universal.”—

    You would need to (a) define ‘minds have’ in some existential terminology. (b) define ‘logical structure’ in some form other than metaphorical, ‘logical structure’ is an existential statement (c) that if the structure is simple and universal why haven’t stated what it is, in simple universal terms. I am fairly current cognitive sciences and experimental and evolutionary psychology. So I will understand it if you state it.

    —“We define a human mind as distinct from that of its nearest non-human mind in terms of means and ends.”—

    I think you mean that we observe that humans plan, and that, humans are capable of planning, and that planning requires we are capable of means (inputs and operations) and ends (outputs). (The statement ‘we define…’ is an axiomatic one, but the statement that follows is empirical.)

    —“The human mind, we reason aprioristically, has ends,”—

    I think you mean that given our observations, we deduce, induce or guess, that human beings demonstrate that the act to pursue ends, and therefore the human brain is capable of conceiving of ends.

    —“it perceives what it regards as realistic means of attaining them, and it expects that if it applies those means, its utility will be greater than if it does not. “—

    Yes, I think that is correct.

    —“This mental operation is carried out by the natural scientist and by ordinary people in their everyday lives.”—

    “—

    The act of planning is demonstrated by all people we know of, and we cannot observe individuals who we consider to demonstrate expected human behavior who cannot.

    Yes, but this tells us nothing about the limits to that process, nor the numerable cognitive biases that we have documented, nor the reasons that we require recorded observations, instrumentation and operational language in order to ensure that what we imagine is that which others can replicate.

    —“To deny the logical structure is tantamount to denying that human beings are distinct in that it can reason about how to achieve what they regard as their ends.”—

    But then I never did deny this straw man, right? I denied that rationalism dependent upon reason independent of the scientific method constituted in empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth, have been demonstrated to provide greater success in all walks of life and in all fields, than rationalism, and that rationalism had been used moreover to conduct the vast majority of ethical, moral, pseudoscientific, political, economic, platonic and mystical deceptions.

    —“Curt may reject this argument,”—-

    You haven’t made an argument. You’ve merely stated the straw many that people are capable of SOME reason, but not impugned the argument that people are ONLY capable of SOME reason and measurably, very little of it, and that we can measure it consistently. And that the vast majority of errors, and lies have been conducted using the rationalist method.

    —” but you should not advance the hypothesis that it is dishonest or that one who makes it is a liar. “—

    But you have just done an elaborate job of demonstrating that I am correct, by misrepresenting my position, arguing against a straw man, pretending that you are reliant upon axiomatic (closed) argument. And you have avoided the central argument that I have put forward by doing it.

    SO HOW DO I KNOW? How am I to assume that you can conduct this elaborate a set of mistakes, without attributing mistakes of this number and severity to lying? WHereas, if you stated the same argument as a sequece of human actions, or even vaguely analytically so that each staetment was testable, then I could at least know you were TRYING to speak truthfulfly.

    Now, because I can deduce that you’ve been fooled by the use of overloading by the advocates of the rationalist fallacy, and I can tell that you are not fully cognizant of what you’re saying, I know that just as a child has been taught that which he believes to be right, but lacks the ability to refute, that you’re just propagating someone else’s lie, rather than lying yourself. (I knew that all along really, because you can only be fooled by the rothbardian misesian fallacies if you morally intuit that they are correct even if you cannot criticize them sufficiently to falsify them.) In other words, you have learned an elaborate means of justifying your cognitive biases.

    SO IF YOU TALK LIKE A LIAR, AND YOU”RE TELLING A LIE, HOW DO I KNOW YOUR INTENTIONS? Whereas if you talk as an honest man in the language of science, which is mischaracterized as ‘the scientific method’ since that method has nothing necessarily to do with the practice of physical science, and everything to do with ensuring that one is making honest testimony regardless of subject matter.

    So yes I was taunting you so that you would create an emotional association with this argument and ponder it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 11:06:00 UTC

  • feminist argument. Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of acc

    http://slnm.us/99c9qj9False feminist argument.

    Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of access to sex and affection.

    Self esteem is a Freudian psychologism – meaning a deception.

    All emotional states can be described as economic transitions. And only by describing emotional states as economic transactions are arguments free of deceptive loading and framing.

    Men trade production and defense, and to some degree physical manipulation and transformation of the world for sex and affection.

    The relative value in exchange, of a man’s productivity declines with any marginal increase in his mate’s productivity.

    His brain chemistry punishes him so that he increased his productivity, thereby restoring his value, or he must search for a new mate for whom his productivity is likely to retain his access to sex and affection.

    This explanation is born out by the data in all walks of life.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 19:27:00 UTC

  • THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE –“1. social sciences cannot control condition

    THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE

    –“1. social sciences cannot control conditions such to test the variables of a hypothesis.”—

    This statement is false. It is one of the many libertine lies. As most libertine lies, and like most successful lies, it relies enough on a grain of half truth to be able to fool the audience by suggestion.

    Positivism as a movement is false, but empiricism is not. There is no requirement for constructing data, only for observing and collecting data as measurement of one kind or another, because we must be sure that by the use of measurements, we compensate for the frailty of our wishful thinking, our biases, our reason, our perception, and memory.

    For example, we can and did hypothesize red shift. We cannot create red shift, only observe it. Likewise, we can construct an theory of the economy, or of any social phenomenon, and exhaustively test the theory against all instances of the collected data.

    As long as the data that CORRESPONDS can be operationally DESCRIBED – that is, reduced to a rational series of human actions – then we have conducted both a test of external correspondence as well as a test of internal consistency.

    Just why this lie has been so successful I am not sure. I suspect that it is because people WANT to believe the lie, as they want to believe many lies. Because they try to justify what gives them advantage, rather than seek the truth whether it is advantageous to them or not.

    But the fact remains, the criticism of empiricism in the social sciences is nothing more than an elaborate lie, that literally through “advertising” by cosmopolitan libertines, has successfully overloaded an ignorant and wishful population sufficient to persist the lie – just as all cults and religions must accomplish, libertines (all cosmopolitans) have accomplished this particular lie.

    PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE IF WE SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND WE MAY ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH WHERE PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE. BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WE CALL “SCIENCE” IS A MORAL ONE – and has nothing particular to do with scientific research, but all human inquiry.

    1 – Empiricism: observe, measure, record.

    2 – Instrumentalism: reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable by means of formal instruments (physical instrumentation) or informal instruments (logic).

    3 – Operationalism: defend against the introduction of error, wishful thinking, bias, and imagination.

    4 – Testimonial Truth: it is not possible to testify to the truth of a proposition that you cannot state operationally, as both a means of construction (internal consistency, existential possibility), and a means of use (external correspondence, external correlation).

    As far as I know the libertine fallacy stands irreparably falsified by this argument.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 08:56:00 UTC

  • WRONG QUESTION? Does intellectual conservatism exist? This may be the wrong ques

    http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/06/24/whither-intellectual-conservatism/THE WRONG QUESTION?

    Does intellectual conservatism exist? This may be the wrong question.

    I’ll argue that yes, intellectual conservatism does exist. Although, when you say “intellectual” it is somewhat troublesome, because it’s not sufficiently articulate for the purpose you intend. Instead, humans demonstrate the ability to argue( persuade or justify) using a limited number of frameworks – and those frameworks constitute a spectrum of complexity from the simplistically intuitive to the ratio-empirical. The question is, what form of argument do you consider to be classifiable as intellectual, where on this spectrum to conservatives conduct their arguments, and for what reason do they fail to conduct their arguments in the manner you consider intellectual.

    ARGUMENTATIVE SPECTRUM

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject. While used as an argument, it is not. It is merely an opinion or expression.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine.

    4) HISTORICAL (analogical / correlative):

    5) RATIONAL (internally consistent)

    6) SCIENTIFIC (correlative and directly empirical)

    7) ECONOMIC: (correlative and *indirectly* empirical)

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive, internally consistent and externally correspondent)

    Conservatism, when discussed outside of economics, where it is almost never discussed, is almost always expressed in arational terms (moral argument). Sometimes it is expressed in legal terms – the classical liberal and constitutionalist argument). Sometimes it is expressed in what we call the Burkeian or ‘psychological’ form of argument. But rarely as an analytic, scientific, or economic argument. And never as the central propositions of conservatism – because those central propositions would be untenable to a popular democratic polity – even if they were indeed morally, economically, and politically superior. This is because the popular democratic argument is a failed one, that is in direct conflict with conservatism as a social, economic, political and legal strategy.

    So, conservatism is argued most often, “arationally”. The value of conservatism, as an *ARATIONAL* social system of myths, traditions, habits, and formal institutions, is that such a structure, much like religious faith, is impervious to fashionable changes, and in particular, verbal manipulation by Schumpeterian public intellectuals. In fact, I have argued, and I think successfully, that conservatism as practiced is demonstrably scientific: evidentiary – while progressivism is demonstrably and successfully verbalist. A fact which is somewhat humorous or ironic or depressing depending upon one’s own disposition: in effect while conservatism is arationally structured, and progressivism is rationally structured, it turns out that conservatism as practiced is scientific, and progressive is unscientific (religious). Furthermore, science itself is practiced demonstrably, not argumentatively – which only serves to lend credence to the conservative prohibition on hubris, and the mandate for demonstrated results rather than verbal hypothesis.

    THE PROBLEMS OF AN ‘INTELLECTUAL’ CONSERVATISM

    1) Just as we solved the calculus and physics, before we solved economics and social science, conservatism has been unsolved (unarticulated in ratio-scientific terms) because it is a more complicated system than we had anticipated. And such complicated systems of thought are very hard to use in argument. Worse, they are hard to use in political argument because, under a democratic polity, we require numbers, and complicated arguments are the province of a permanent minority. Until conservatism is articulated in ratio-empirical form, and until public intellectuals can reduce those complex statements to simple narratives and memes, conservatism (Anglo-European Aristocratic Egalitarianism) is an advanced form of social order that is nearly impossible for ordinary people to argumentatively defend.

    2) There doesn’t appear to be demand for intellectual argument in conservatism, precisely because conservatives are so dependent upon taught, learned and innate moral intuition. If conservatives cannot ‘feel’ it then they don’t trust it. This turns out to be fairly good when one prevents adding false ideas to conservatism, but it turns out to be fairly difficult to argue conservatism rationally. So therefore, as a majority, conservatism can function and persist in a body of people. But under democratic rule, cultural and political diversity, the need to argue rationally in order to produce laws, and the ability to use law to impose changes upon the body politic, conservative arationalism is a weakness because conservative principles are not sufficiently defensible against (dishonest) framing, loading, overloading, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience. Which is why the 20th century has been so harmful to conservatism: the cosmopolitans were merely superior at using the media to broadcast and repeat as a mantra, nearly any framed, loaded, overloaded, pseudo-rational (postmodern), and pseudoscientific (marxist-socialist) program.

    3) I generally test my ideas in the libertarian (libertine) community precisely because libertarianism (libertinism) is an intellectual ideology: structured as a very rigid, very analytic, moral, legal, and economic argument. Libertarians (libertines) are wrong, which is why their argument fails universally in all political populations. But at least it is possible to conduct conservative argument in moral, legal, and economic terms, and develop one’s arguments there. Most of us find, that even if we produce, as you say ‘intellectual’ philosophy, but I would state as ‘ratio-empirical, moral, analytic, legal, and economic philosophy’, conservatives behave so anti-intellectually, that the advocacy of conservatism in ratio-empirical, analytic, moral, legal, and economic terms, is exasperating.

    SO THE QUESTION MAY BE “WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES SO ANTI-INTELLECTUAL” rather than why are no conservative philosophers extant. I’m here. A few others are. But the conservative community does not demonstrate a demand for ‘intellectual’ arguments. All things considered, that is not necessarily a criticism. It just so happens that if the academy and the state conspire rather than are separated as were church and state, and in an age of expensive consumer-driven media, financed by hedonistic consumption, conservatives face a perfect storm of destructive incentives, against which traditionalism is not a sufficiently resistant means of argument, because we lack the economic means of ostracizing bad behaviors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 16:07:00 UTC

  • INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM EXIST? Response to: Does intellectual conservatism exi

    http://anarcho-monarchism.com/2014/06/24/intellectual-conservatism-existDOES INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM EXIST?

    Response to: http://anarcho-monarchism.com/2014/06/24/intellectual-conservatism-exist

    Does intellectual conservatism exist? This may be the wrong question.

    I’ll argue that Yes, intellectual conservatism does exist. Although, when you say “intellectual” it is somewhat troublesome, because it’s not sufficiently articulate for the purpose intended. Instead, humans demonstrate the ability to argue( persuade or justify) using a limited number of frameworks – and those frameworks constitute a spectrum of complexity from the simplistically intuitive to the ratio-empirical.

    ARGUMENTATIVE SPECTRUM

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject. While used as an argument, it is not. It is merely an opinion or expression.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine.

    4) HISTORICAL (analogical / correlative):

    5) RATIONAL (internally consistent)

    6) SCIENTIFIC (correlative and directly empirical)

    7) ECONOMIC: (correlative and *indirectly* empirical)

    8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive, internally consistent and externally correspondent)

    The value of conservatism, as an *ARATIONAL* social system of myths, traditions, habits, and formal institutions, is that such a structure, much like religious faith, is impervious to fashionable changes, and in particular, verbal manipulation by Schumpeterian public intellectuals. In fact, I have argued, and I think successfully, that conservatism as practiced is demonstrably scientific: evidentiary – while progressivism is demonstrably and successfully verbalist. A fact which is somewhat humorous or ironic or depressing depending upon one’s own disposition: in effect while conservatism is arationally structured, and progressivism is rationally structured, it turns out that conservatism as practiced is scientific, and progressive is unscientific (religious).

    THE PROBLEMS OF AN ‘INTELLECTUAL’ CONSERVATISM

    1) Just as we solved the calculus and physics, before we solved economics and social science, conservatism has been unsolved (unarticulated in ratio-scientific terms) because it is a more complicated system than we had anticipated. And such complicated systems of thought are very hard to use in argument. Worse, they are hard to use in political argument because, under a democratic polity, we require numbers, and complicated arguments are the province of a permanent minority. Until conservatism is articulated in ratio-empirical form, and until public intellectuals can reduce those complex statements to simple narratives and memes, conservatism (Anglo-European Aristocratic Egalitarianism) is an advanced form of social order that is nearly impossible for ordinary people to argumentatively defend.

    2) There doesn’t appear to be demand for intellectual argument in conservatism, precisely because conservatives are so dependent upon taught, learned and innate moral intuition. If conservatives cannot ‘feel’ it then they don’t trust it. This turns out to be fairly good when one prevents adding false ideas to conservatism, but it turns out to be fairly difficult to argue conservatism rationally. So therefore, as a majority, conservatism can function and persist in a body of people. But under democratic rule, cultural and political diversity, the need to argue rationally in order to produce laws, and the ability to use law to impose changes upon the body politic, conservative arationalism is a weakness because conservative principles are not sufficiently defensible against (dishonest) framing, loading, overloading, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience. Which is why the 20th century has been so harmful to conservatism: the cosmopolitans were merely superior at using the media to broadcast and repeat as a mantra, nearly any framed, loaded, overloaded, pseudo-rational (postmodern), and pseudoscientific (marxist-socialist) program.

    3) I generally test my ideas in the libertarian (libertine) community precisely because libertarianism (libertinism) is an intellectual ideology: structured as a very rigid, very analytic, moral, legal, and economic argument. Libertarians (libertines) are wrong, which is why their argument fails universally in all political populations. But at least it is possible to conduct conservative argument in moral, legal, and economic terms, and develop one’s arguments there. Most of us find, that even if we produce, as you say ‘intellectual’ philosophy, but I would state as ‘ratio-empirical, moral, analytic, legal, and economic philosophy’, conservatives behave so anti-intellectually, that the advocacy of conservatism in ratio-empirical, analytic, moral, legal, and economic terms, is exasperating.

    SO THE QUESTION MAY BE “WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES SO ANTI-INTELLECTUAL” rather than why are no conservative philosophers extant. I’m here. A few others are. But the conservative community does not demonstrate a demand for ‘intellectual’ arguments.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-19 02:20:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS. It’s true that

    ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS.

    It’s true that rothbardians have constructed an elaborate system of justification, and a set of arguments to advance that justification. It is only that your argument requires belief and normative adoption. It’s a cult. And that cult has failed. Because only socially dysfunctional people are capable of holding that belief. And only with such an elaborately justified edifice to maintain that belief.

    Instead I am suggesting a social science that fully explains all political systems as evolutionary and competitive strategies, and that all belief is justification, while this particular science is an explanation.

    I choose aristocratic egalitarianism because I do not have to be socially dysfunctional, adopt a belief, suspend disbelief, or engage in justification. I must only observe and acknowledge man as he demonstrates himself, and understand which institutions are necessary to provide the incentives to produce Liberty – while suppressing all free riding, and therefore both demand for the State and ability to construct a state.

    You in the other hand require the fantasy – the fallacy – that ghetto ethics constitute a rational choice. They don’t. Which is why people won’t adopt them.

    No one wants jews and gypsies. We murdered Jews and gypsies. We are getting close to the same with Muslims. We didn’t try to imitate them. That would be to devolve our civilization. We conquered, ostracized, oppressed and killed them. Justifiably. Necessarily. Usefully. Even if immorally. What is remarkable is that unlike all other civilisations we are tolerant enough not to exterminate them. The reason we are tolerant is that we obtain status signals from maintaining their inferiority.

    No one wants low trust people’s. All lower trust people’s that one can possibly defend against, must be conquered, converted, oppressed, or killed. If not, in ghettos, whether real or virtual, we can keep low trust people as useful pets, and cheap status signals that remind us our our higher station, our superior civilization, and our superior ethics, morality, and institutions.

    Unfortunately, women have entered the political domain under open enfranchisement, and have not had to earn their enfranchisement through demonstrating good judgement. And have, therefore, devolved our society rapidly, by undermining the means of suppressing unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior, because women practice, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior in order to advance themselves and their offspring regardless of their merit.

    (wow. I think that’s about as offensively direct as I currently know how to construct the argument. lol )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 09:52:00 UTC

  • CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE The purpose of critique is deception and contro

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE

    The purpose of critique is deception and control. Now that I understand that fact, and that Critical Rationalism can easily be used as an instance of Critique, I understand why it is so frequently misused, and why scientists don’t practice CR. They use falsification, sure, and they are forever skeptical, but they do not practice criticism as critique. In fact, they ignore the philosophical community altogether.

    Worse, CRITICAL RATIONALISM without Operationalism is not compatible with truth tellilng. Construction is not justification it is a test of observation vs imagination.

    As a general rule, misuse of CR places emphasis on meaning as a means of control, while the craft of science produces recipes in the universal language of action without control. Science is compatible with operational language and testimonial truth, and CR, as stated and practiced is not.

    Under CR one has no skin in the game. Under science and testimonial truth, one has skin in the game. Thus we get Rothbards, Lesters and Blocks, not science.

    Our western science evolved not to justify but to emphasize truth telling. Hermeneutic scriptural interpretation and the same under jewish law evolved to justify interpretation, not truthful description of extant events.

    Indo European Aristocratic Egalitarian = warrior testimony.

    Anglo Empirical Testimonial truth = Same

    German Duty Testimonial Truth = Same

    Cosmopolitan Justifiactionary = Not at all the same.

    Yep.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 04:54:00 UTC

  • (Choice Words) ***Lester has therefore engaged in the argumentative technique of

    (Choice Words)

    ***Lester has therefore engaged in the argumentative technique of Marxist Critique, Using Postmodern verbalism, which is to postulate a straw man, as a vehicle for criticizing extant ideas, in an effort to leave his argument as the last one standing, even though it contains no critical properties. He then states that he is applying critical rationalism, which Popper evolved from cosmopolitan hermeneutic interpretation of scripture – albeit with less deceitful intentions – when in fact, he does not adhere to the constraints of scientific argument. By conflating Critique (verbalism) with Critical Rationalism (criticism), in the absence of testable propositions, Lester’s innovation is not his theory of liberty, it is that he has extended Marxist and Postmodern Critique to address libertarian property rights. Like the marxists, socialists, and postmodernists, we must assume that he does so for unconscious reasons and is a victim of his education. However, the twentieth century’s conquest of liberty, and its near dark age in social pseudoscience and deceptive philosophy, was conducted using such obscurantist and justifactionary arguments in both pseudoscience and pseudorationalism.***

    This criticism of Lester has turned out to be an exceptional vehicle for illustrating just how much the liberty movement has absolutely nothing to do with aristocratic egalitarian liberty, and everything to do with creating as an elaborate justification of multiculturalism, as did the socialists and neo-conservatives.

    (Thanks Don Finnegan )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 09:14:00 UTC