Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Reasons For The Decline Of The Humanities

    (good)(attack on academia) (Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.) [Warning: Harsh words follow.] 1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them. 2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful). 3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses. 4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities. However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society. 5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful. 6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means. 7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought. SO BEFORE YOU JUSTIFY THE HUMANITIES PERHAPS AN *EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS** WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENEFITS ARE SOLELY RESERVED FOR ACADEMICS AT TRAGIC COST TO SOCIETY. AND THAT BY AND LARGE, THE HUMANITIES HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MORE HUMAN SUFFERING AND CORRUPTION THAN THE CHURCH EVER MANAGED TO MUSTER. That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev   http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7629 The Decline of Humanities blog.talkingphilosophy.com One of the current narratives is that the humanities are in danger at American universities. Some schools are cutting funding for the humanities while others are actually eliminating majors and dep..

  • Reasons For The Decline Of The Humanities

    (good)(attack on academia) (Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.) [Warning: Harsh words follow.] 1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them. 2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful). 3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses. 4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities. However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society. 5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful. 6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means. 7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought. SO BEFORE YOU JUSTIFY THE HUMANITIES PERHAPS AN *EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS** WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENEFITS ARE SOLELY RESERVED FOR ACADEMICS AT TRAGIC COST TO SOCIETY. AND THAT BY AND LARGE, THE HUMANITIES HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MORE HUMAN SUFFERING AND CORRUPTION THAN THE CHURCH EVER MANAGED TO MUSTER. That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev   http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7629 The Decline of Humanities blog.talkingphilosophy.com One of the current narratives is that the humanities are in danger at American universities. Some schools are cutting funding for the humanities while others are actually eliminating majors and dep..

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman's Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman’s Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman's Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman’s Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • (CORE) On The Utopianism Of Libertarianism

    TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM (all) (worth reading) (insight) Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation). That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND …. 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders) With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • (CORE) On The Utopianism Of Libertarianism

    TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM (all) (worth reading) (insight) Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation). That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND …. 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders) With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • whole narrative hasn’t made sense to me. I could have told you this. It doesn’t

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-failsThis whole narrative hasn’t made sense to me.

    I could have told you this. It doesn’t make sense. I mean, as far as I can tell, it’s just an easy way to make a lot more money than they can by other means. Sex for drugs is one thing. But at least around here, you can’t tell the prostitutes (we don’t have ‘hookers’ here) from the average girls. (Veronika can. I can’t.) I mean in a country where you make about $800 a month if you’re lucky, and 1000 if you’re very lucky, $200-$300 for an hour’s worth of work on friday and saturday night can double your monthly income.

    I mean, at this fairly upscale restaurant the other night some girl went through five guys in the course of six hours. Looked like she walked out of a Elle advertisement. Weird. I mean, I only saw the first two but my friend was who works there was texting me during the entire event. (I hope she showered in between. ick… I mean. Seriously.)

    But that’s two months salary around here in one evening of sport sex.

    Very strange world. Surreal.

    I really would like to write a paper on this economics and incentives in Ukrainian prostitution but people already think all sorts of insane nonsense about me, and I dont need to pour gasoline on those ideas.

    I have a friend to tends a bar in one of the strip clubs here and through him I wheedled my way into going drinking with management and owners, and sort of spent a couple of evenings going through the business models of all the different shops in town. Is a hysterical business. It’s really not much different from any other kind of retail.

    The most interesting thing, is that they CAN’T hire prostitutes exclusively. There wouldn’t be anyone to do the dancing on busy nights. In any given club some percentage of girls work ‘without sex’. And there are older women who teach them how to do it. (how to be interesting and get they guys to spend money on drinks and food and other girls). It’s like a commission sales job. The prostitutes make the house a lot more money. But they are more in demand and have more control over their schedules and work. The ‘dancers’ are basically salespeople.

    Every club has to pay off some politician or other and most clubs are partly owned by someone in the bureaucracy who is a silent partner. They pay the cops to stay away. But that doesn’t necessarily stop them if you create a problem.

    Anyway. My two cents.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 17:08:00 UTC

  • DISAGREE. OBAMA IS WEAK. Worst. American. President. In. History. In the past co

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/robert-fisk-he-may-huff-and-puff-but-benjamin-netanyahu-is-on-his-own-now-as-nuclear-agreement-isolates-israel-8960766.htmlI DISAGREE. OBAMA IS WEAK.

    Worst. American. President. In. History.

    In the past couple of years sometime, someone overheard and quoted Bibi as saying that americans can be bent to Israeli will, using the power of media and the jewish lobby.

    But they can’t with an anti-western, anti-white, black Muslim in the white house, who the press must defend out of fear that they and their ideology would lose legitimacy.

    I freaking hate politics. We need a world without politics. And only a private government, allows that to happen. But the only private government that is sustainable is one that is limited by a well armed militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 02:54:00 UTC