Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • WHY REFORM IT? JUST REPLACE IT. DIVORCE AND START OVER? I am pretty confident th

    WHY REFORM IT? JUST REPLACE IT. DIVORCE AND START OVER?

    I am pretty confident that the praxeological line of reasoning, as currently constructed, is a dead end, as I’ve argued elsewhere. In no small part because it cannot compete with the universality of the language and processes of the ratio-scientific method. But while an inferior method, it’s still a useful method. And if it helps people understand micro and ethics then that’s good enough.

    The challenge at this inflection point in intellectual history, is that Hoppe has created the formal language of political ethics and political economy, and taught most of us to argue politics ethics and morality in economic terms. Yet that language is unnecessarily dependent upon Argumentation, Continental Rationalism, and a misguided attempt to conflate logic and science, in order to defend against a positivism that is not present in the philosophy or practice of science – if it ever was.

    Logic is axiomatic, and therefore both prescriptive and deductive. Science is theoretic, and therefore descriptive and deductive. But we can make statements in logic that are internally consistent yet not externally correspondent, yet we cannot make theories that fail external correspondence, whether or not our language is internally consistent.

    Comparative ethics, empirically studied, yields a universal descriptive ethics that is theoretically rigid and more sustainable from criticism than rothbardian ethics.

    In all cultures and all civilizations, manners, ethics and morals reflect the necessary rules for organizing reproduction (the family) and the polity of families, such that they may cooperate in whatever structure of production is available to them. The content of those rules, under analysis, can be represented as property rights, each of which is distributed between the individual to the commons. Demand for third party authority as a means of resolving differences (the state) is determined by the degree of suppression of free riding (parasitism), and the number of competing sets of rules (family structures and classes) within any given structure of production. These sets of rules can be expressed as a simple formal grammar, which allows us to render all moral and ethical systems commensurable.

    Macro economics, experimental psychology, and cognitive science have contributed all economic insights over the past three decades, and none of these insights were deducible (cognitive biases in particular), or were emergent effects of economic cooperation (stickiness of prices, the time delay until money achieves neutrality, and the quantitative impact on interest and production in the interim, within each sustainable pattern of specialization and trade.)

    So, WHICH IS MORE PARSIMONIOUS A THEORY?

    Which theory is easier to understand?

    Which theory is more obscurant?

    Which more accurately reflects reality?

    I can explain and demonstrate this theory to anyone with a ratio-scientific background. I know this because it is simply an advancement to Ostrom’s work on institutions and she was able to do so.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 04:37:00 UTC

  • OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to r

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K9FYT62REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’.

    Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning.

    THOUGHTS

    I do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary.

    The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project.

    However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.)

    So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory.

    CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has.

    So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it.

    It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours.

    Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors.

    Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. 🙂

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-19 06:17:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINES. MASQUERADING AS LIBERTARIANS Block is the poster child for unethical

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/walter-e-block/pure-libertarianism/PURE LIBERTINES. MASQUERADING AS LIBERTARIANS

    Block is the poster child for unethical, immoral, ghetto libertarianism, and he hurts the movement every time he opens his mouth. Rockwell is barman

    of the lunatic fringe, and Kinsella the bouncer of ignorance and dogmatism — they’re the three stooges of the red-flag rothbardian conspiracy to cause the failure of the western liberty movement – and the’re live onstage, nightly.

    Our enemy is the state. It’s not ethics or morality. The libertarian’s only moral question is how to maintain a moral and ethical high trust society while getting rid of the state, and all possible demand for the state.

    Libertines are a cancer. There isn’t any ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ libertarianism. That’s another ruse to obscure the red flag operation of the libertines to undermine the high trust society we have slowly built for millennia.

    Aristocratic egalitarianism is the only source of liberty that ever was or will be. The enfranchisement of the willing in the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of organized violence to defend it. That is “Right” libertarianism. The wealth and liberty that comes from Right libertarianism, makes possible the LUXURY of left libertarianism’s moral appeals for charity. But libertines are merely parasites on aristocratic necessity and charitable luxury.

    Non-aggression is a ruse. A lie. A convenient distraction. A false flag. The means of violating our property is immaterial. All that is necessary is that property is violated in whatever creative manner than man invents.

    Hoppe was right. We need no more than property for our freedom.

    And we have no use for libertines: parasites by any other name.

    Moral Realism, Propertarianism, Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

    The virtue of violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 12:36:00 UTC

  • Rothbardianism: A Religion For Betas

    [C]onvenient. Isn’t it? You can feel good that you’re a beta, but you don’t have to do anything about it except whine. Feed the internal social status junkie? Just like progressives feed it by conspicuous consumption of other people’s wealth? (Nuff said?) If you’re not a beta. And you’re not a coward. And you’re not a free-rider, and you desire liberty in practice rather liberty in fantasy, come over to Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Liberty for alphas. No pussy-tarians allowed. Liberty is obtained against the will of free riders at the end of pointy objects. Property rights are obtained in exchange for insuring the property rights of others who do the same. www.propertarianism.com ht: Chris Lavan

  • Rothbardianism: A Religion For Betas

    [C]onvenient. Isn’t it? You can feel good that you’re a beta, but you don’t have to do anything about it except whine. Feed the internal social status junkie? Just like progressives feed it by conspicuous consumption of other people’s wealth? (Nuff said?) If you’re not a beta. And you’re not a coward. And you’re not a free-rider, and you desire liberty in practice rather liberty in fantasy, come over to Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Liberty for alphas. No pussy-tarians allowed. Liberty is obtained against the will of free riders at the end of pointy objects. Property rights are obtained in exchange for insuring the property rights of others who do the same. www.propertarianism.com ht: Chris Lavan

  • Libertines Masquerading As Libertarians

    [B]lock is the poster child for unethical, immoral, ghetto libertarianism, and he hurts the movement every time he opens his mouth. Rockwell is barman of the lunatic fringe, and Kinsella the bouncer of ignorance and dogmatism — they’re the three stooges of the red-flag rothbardian conspiracy to cause the failure of the western liberty movement – and the’re live onstage, nightly. Our enemy is the state. It’s not ethics or morality. The libertarian’s only moral question is how to maintain a moral and ethical high trust society while getting rid of the state, and all possible demand for the state. Libertines are a cancer. There isn’t any ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ libertarianism. That’s another ruse to obscure the red flag operation of the libertines to undermine the high trust society we have slowly built for millennia. Aristocratic egalitarianism is the only source of liberty that ever was or will be. The enfranchisement of the willing in the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of organized violence to defend it. That is “Right” libertarianism. The wealth and liberty that comes from Right libertarianism, makes possible the LUXURY of left libertarianism’s moral appeals for charity. But libertines are merely parasites on aristocratic necessity and charitable luxury. Non-aggression is a ruse. A lie. A convenient distraction. A false flag. The means of violating our property is immaterial. All that is necessary is that property is violated in whatever creative manner than man invents. Hoppe was right. We need no more than property for our freedom. And we have no use for libertines: parasites by any other name. Moral Realism, Propertarianism, Aristocratic Egalitarianism. The virtue of violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Libertines Masquerading As Libertarians

    [B]lock is the poster child for unethical, immoral, ghetto libertarianism, and he hurts the movement every time he opens his mouth. Rockwell is barman of the lunatic fringe, and Kinsella the bouncer of ignorance and dogmatism — they’re the three stooges of the red-flag rothbardian conspiracy to cause the failure of the western liberty movement – and the’re live onstage, nightly. Our enemy is the state. It’s not ethics or morality. The libertarian’s only moral question is how to maintain a moral and ethical high trust society while getting rid of the state, and all possible demand for the state. Libertines are a cancer. There isn’t any ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ libertarianism. That’s another ruse to obscure the red flag operation of the libertines to undermine the high trust society we have slowly built for millennia. Aristocratic egalitarianism is the only source of liberty that ever was or will be. The enfranchisement of the willing in the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of organized violence to defend it. That is “Right” libertarianism. The wealth and liberty that comes from Right libertarianism, makes possible the LUXURY of left libertarianism’s moral appeals for charity. But libertines are merely parasites on aristocratic necessity and charitable luxury. Non-aggression is a ruse. A lie. A convenient distraction. A false flag. The means of violating our property is immaterial. All that is necessary is that property is violated in whatever creative manner than man invents. Hoppe was right. We need no more than property for our freedom. And we have no use for libertines: parasites by any other name. Moral Realism, Propertarianism, Aristocratic Egalitarianism. The virtue of violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Review: Misreading Popper

    REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning. THOUGHTS [I] do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary. The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project. However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.) So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory. CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has. So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it. It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours. Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors. Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. Cheers Curt Misreading Popper www.amazon.com

  • Review: Misreading Popper

    REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning. THOUGHTS [I] do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary. The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project. However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.) So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory. CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has. So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it. It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours. Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors. Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. Cheers Curt Misreading Popper www.amazon.com

  • LIBERTARIANISM: A RELIGION FOR BETAS. Convenient. Isn’t it? You can feel good th

    http://www.propertarianism.com/ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANISM: A RELIGION FOR BETAS.

    Convenient. Isn’t it? You can feel good that you’re a beta, but you don’t have to do anything about it except whine. Feed the internal social status junkie? Just like progressives feed it by conspicuous consumption of other people’s wealth?

    (Nuff said?)

    If you’re not a beta. And you’re not a coward. And you’re not a free-rider, and you desire liberty in practice rather liberty in fantasy, come over to Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Liberty for alphas. No pussy-tarians allowed. 😉

    Liberty is obtained against the will of free riders at the end of pointy objects. Property rights are obtained in exchange for insuring the property rights of others who do the same.

    www.propertarianism.com

    ht: Chris Lavan

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-15 07:16:00 UTC