Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • FREUD WAS A FOOL AND AS MUCH OF AN INTELLECTUAL DISASTER FOR MANKIND AS MARX Hum

    FREUD WAS A FOOL AND AS MUCH OF AN INTELLECTUAL DISASTER FOR MANKIND AS MARX

    Humans are driven by status signals. The purpose of status signals may in fact INCLUDE access to reproduction, but that is only one of the may uses of signals. Without signals we cannot know whom to imitate. Without those signals we literally cannot think. We cannot think without signals any more than we can perceive beyond our fingertips without numbers, counting and arithmetic. We cannot think without signals any more than we can think about the future in a division of knowledge and labor without the tools of time, money and prices.

    The human accounting system is status signals. Unlike the properties of the physical world, which we need numbers, measures, counting, arithmetic to sense, and unlike the economic world of our productive cooperation where we need money and prices to sense each other’s wants and needs, we need no tools to sense status signals. They are the only fine measurements we can grasp without abstract tools.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-24 06:27:00 UTC

  • YET ANOTHER FOOL ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD OF THE DIASPORA The problem, given Zin

    YET ANOTHER FOOL ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD OF THE DIASPORA

    The problem, given Zinn’s writing, is in asking the question what do we mean by obedience? If it means to norms, or to labor, or to the productive results of labor, or to all of the above? Because each of these things involves one or more forms of coercion. Norms require the threat of ostracization from opportunities. Labor requires the application of violence to force people to cooperate according to some scheme that is preordained. The taking of the results of productive labor requires the application of violence according to someone’s preferences. So Zinn may rely upon soft words, but they are meaningless without the means of enacting them. And they cannot be enacted without obedience that is enforced by violence.

    In the end, Zinn is still a socialist: that some person’s view of the common good is superior to another’s, and that words must be used to justify the use of violence against some for the benefit of others.

    The aristocratic model minimizes population in favor of maximum productivity, the socialistic model maximizes population through emphasis on consumption and egalitarianism. Nothing more. These two points describe a spectrum that can only reach compromise in the middle by voluntary exchange between the two modes of operation. Otherwise any imposed homogeneity across both strategies requires acts of violence that serve the genetic preferences and interests of some at the expense of the genetic preferences and interests of others.

    Zinn is just another well meaning fool that does not comprehend this fundamental problem of political action.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-17 08:33:00 UTC

  • STUPID ARTICLE ON KEYNESIAN IDEALISM I am too tired to construct a point-by-poin

    http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/john-quiggin-keynesian-utopiav1/PAINFULLY STUPID ARTICLE ON KEYNESIAN IDEALISM

    I am too tired to construct a point-by-point criticism of John Quiggin’s romantic, idealistic, and unfortunately, logically unsound appeal for a new Keynesian egalitarianism. But it’s begging for that kind of treatment.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-10 23:53:00 UTC

  • ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF EURO-BLOWHARDS restating the patently obvious? The northern

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/europes-crisisIS ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF EURO-BLOWHARDS

    restating the patently obvious? The northern and southern cultures are incompatible. Or better stated, the Protestant german speaking cultures are incompatible with the catholic countries. Is that difficult to understand?

    The euro was doomed from the start. Either the germanic peoples leave and save the south, or the south leaves and dies by suicide. Although some of our south american friends have proven even that is survivable if you have a parent currency to leverage.

    The Economist for some reason feels the need to print toilet tissue on the subject. But this is not a question of economic efficiency. It’s a question of cultures.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-21 00:01:00 UTC

  • KRUGMAN Straw Man Of The Day : iPhone 5 Shows We Are All Keynesians?

    Krugman’s straw man of the day uses discussions about the impact of the iPhone 5 release on the economy to suggest we are all Keynesians, and that government should spend more money.

    [callout] [/callout]

    But all actions have costs. And Americans have decided that the cost of funding expansion of government influence, power, and corruption is so high, that government stimulus is even worse then continuing recession. So, while Americans may understand, within reason, the value of stimulus. Unlike Keynesian economists, American’s also understand the cost of the expansionist state. And they have had quite enough of it. Unlike certain Nobel laureates.

  • PROBLEM The American Austrian school (The Rothbardian MIsesians) are motivated p

    http://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFATaleOfTwoSchools.pdfONE PROBLEM

    The American Austrian school (The Rothbardian MIsesians) are motivated primarily by political rather than economic interests. Their leadership, in particular, that of Rockwell and the MI, adopted the Marxist ideological strategy of the community organizers on one hand, and public intellectuals on the other.

    And that strategy has proven eminently successful – nearly taking over the term ‘libertarian’ as ‘liberal’ was taken over by the left. So the American Austrians should be appreciated in the context of their ambitions and achievements. Intolerance is necessary for including people in an ideological identity. Politics is emotional by its nature, and ideology is more effective at inciting political action than is reasoned argument. So with their strategy, the Rothbardian Misesians of the American Austrian school have altered the political landscape – for the benefit of all libertarians.

    They have been so successful at introducing anarchic thinking that the rest of the libertarian movement has adopted their methods. And as of last year, have begun openly fighting for their identity against the Rothbardians.

    It is probably a better strategy to criticize the intellectual problems in their message while complimenting the ideological success. By doing so we do not violate their principle of purity, which we see as intolerance.

    (FB Note: Shared so that I don’t lose this comment)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-06 13:05:00 UTC

  • A Critique Of Jason Brennan’s Thought Experiment: Just War Is A Utilitarian And Contractual, Not Absolute Moral Concept

    Some Thought Experiments Involving Assassination by JASON BRENNAN 1. Suppose an evil demon appears before you and says, “I plan to kill hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians and destroy their country’s architecture unless you kill this one innocent person.” Under these extreme circumstances, might it be permissible for you to kill that innocent person? 2. Suppose an evil demon appears before you and says, “I plan to kill hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians and destroy their country’s architecture unless you kill this Mafia don, a criminal who has himself killed many people and who plans to kill many more.” Under these extreme circumstances, might it be permissible for you to kill that Mafia don? 3. Suppose an evil demon appears before you and says, “I plan to kill hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians and destroy their country’s architecture unless you kill the president.” Under these extreme circumstances, might it be permissible for you to kill the president? 4. Suppose the evil demon possesses the president. The evil demon, in the guise of the president, plans to invade a foreign country. Suppose you know that the invasion is unjust–it clearly violates the correct theory of just war. Suppose you also know that the war will kill hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians and destroy their country’s infrastructure. Suppose killing the demon-possessed president will stop, or at least has a good chance of stopping, the invasion. Under these extreme circumstances, might it be permissible for you to kill the president? 5. Suppose there is no evil demon. However, suppose the president, though not possessed by an evil demon, acts just like the possessed president in 4. The president appears before you and says, “I plan to invade a foreign country.” Suppose you know that the invasion is unjust–it clearly violates the correct theory of just war. Suppose you also know that the war will kill hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians and destroy their country’s infrastructure. Suppose killing the president will stop, or at least has a good chance of stopping, the invasion. Under these extreme circumstances, might it be permissible for you to kill the president?

    Jason, 1) Humans war. They always have and always will. It is impossible to resolve all conflicts by peaceful means. 2) The demon and the president are participants in a war. 3) As participants in the war they are outside daily civil legal and moral prohibitions we have constructed for peaceful interactions: our prohibition on violence does not apply. War revokes the prohibition on non violence. That is the purpose and point of demarcation of ‘war’. 4) Moral rules are general rules. They are a shortcut that allows us to propagate contractual terms which help us reduce our error in calculating property transfers when they are beyond our perception and knowledge. Moral rules are not abstract truths. The confusion is created by the priority one gives to the genetic structural categories of family, tribe, and nation, versus the egalitarian structure limited to the categories of the individual and humanity. Much religious content seeks to extend the familial category to the universal as a means of creating an opposition to the state. And approaching questions of property as questions of morality is an artifact of applying religious techniques that seek to simplify complexity into emotionally accessible social rules, to what are practical contractual constructs the articulation of which is too complicated for general use. 5) There is is no longer a genetic composition to war – the need to fight other tribes for genes to persist – which necessitates one’s participation in tribal war. Wars are now, and have been for a long time, conducted for economic interests, even if those economic interests apply only to the costly norms, status signals, property rights portfolios, and political systems that vary between groups. Therefore the individual is free to choose sides. 6) As free to choose sides, one may calculate his interests and those interests of those with whom he shares interests, and determine if he is benefitting or harming those with whom he shares interests. And if it is in his interest and the interest of those with whom he shares interest, then he may act to kill the demon/president/minister/general or not at his will. Propertarianism is correct: all human ethical and political statements can be reduced to property rights, and done so without contrivance. That is because all morals and all human moral feelings, are expressons of property rights when property rights are articulated such that they fully encompass the entirety of those things which humans treat as property. It is hard to do this topic justice in short form. But hopefully this is enough of a sketch to illustrate the problems of both moral parlor games, and treating war as other than a utilitarian construct. So the thought experiment misleads the reader with false premises. a) Argued on abstract and loaded absolute moral grounds, not articulated contractual grounds, in order to mislead the reader. b) Moral statements are general contractual rules for peaceful mutual exchange. c) And war by definition is outside of that contractual environment. d) ‘Just War’ is not an abstract moral truth but a contratual proposition between parties who seek to limit their own costs (See Kagan). So, the thought device is dependent upon the error of the common parlor game, in which one which poses false dichotomies in order to confuse the participants into thinking (like the train-lever parable) that morals are absolute rules foiled by specific extremes, rather than that morals are general statements of property rights loaded with emotional content so that they propagate more easily. The error here is confusing a statement of abstract and absolute truth, with one of utilitarian contract. The first is the meme. The second is a fact. Sometimes we must take risks. Otherwise, we risk also confusing convenience with conviction.

  • POOR UNDERSTANDING OF LAW AND SCALIAS COMMENTS The economist demonstrates its ow

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rightsFRUSTRATINGLY POOR UNDERSTANDING OF LAW AND SCALIAS COMMENTS

    The economist demonstrates its own ignorance.

    The purpose of textualism is to force the government to legislate changes explicitly and to prevent the court from becoming a tool of law-creation that circumvents the democratic process. THAT is the point he is making. We have a process for making laws. And a process for altering the constitution. The court should not be in the process of making laws. And the government should not be in the process of incrementally altering the constitution by non-amendment means. THAT’S THE PURPOSE OF TEXTUALISM.

    Scalia’s only mistake was overestimating the intellectual capacity of the audience.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-04 06:40:00 UTC

  • Justice Scalia Explains Textualism And Originalism Without Explaining WHY We Must Rely Upon Them.

    Scalia is a bit of a personal hero. I adore his clarity.

    He appeared on Fox the other day, and explained Textualism and Originalism. (See wiki.) But I was frustrated that he kept stating what he believed, and how these things SHOULD be interpreted, but now WHY they should be interpreted that way. Now, I’m sure that’s because it’s obvious as the summer sun to him. But to the average person, it isn’t. The reason we should (and a new constitution should mandate) that we apply the original meaning to the precise text, is to prevent the court from circumventing the legislative process and effectively writing new law without the legislative process. Further, it prevents creative destruction of the constitution through reinterpretation, rather than legislation. And emphasis on originalism forces lawmakers to write clearer laws. The constitution contains a process by which it can be modified. That process achieves it’s goals. But our nation has been lost through the reinterpretation and creative expansion of the law via the courts, where the majority would not have approved such laws had they been subject to the constitutional amendment process. Any law that would modify the original intent of the constittuion, and the text, should be subject to the requrement that the amendment process be followed. This violates the democratic socialist secular humanist proposition, that the legislature, endowed by the people with power, can enact any law that they wish. Of course, this makes no sense, because, that is the very meaning of the ‘rule of law’: limits on what laws can be enacted. And it assumes, incorrectly, that we are wiser than we are.

  • Justice Scalia Explains Textualism And Originalism Without Explaining WHY We Must Rely Upon Them.

    Scalia is a bit of a personal hero. I adore his clarity.

    He appeared on Fox the other day, and explained Textualism and Originalism. (See wiki.) But I was frustrated that he kept stating what he believed, and how these things SHOULD be interpreted, but now WHY they should be interpreted that way. Now, I’m sure that’s because it’s obvious as the summer sun to him. But to the average person, it isn’t. The reason we should (and a new constitution should mandate) that we apply the original meaning to the precise text, is to prevent the court from circumventing the legislative process and effectively writing new law without the legislative process. Further, it prevents creative destruction of the constitution through reinterpretation, rather than legislation. And emphasis on originalism forces lawmakers to write clearer laws. The constitution contains a process by which it can be modified. That process achieves it’s goals. But our nation has been lost through the reinterpretation and creative expansion of the law via the courts, where the majority would not have approved such laws had they been subject to the constitutional amendment process. Any law that would modify the original intent of the constittuion, and the text, should be subject to the requrement that the amendment process be followed. This violates the democratic socialist secular humanist proposition, that the legislature, endowed by the people with power, can enact any law that they wish. Of course, this makes no sense, because, that is the very meaning of the ‘rule of law’: limits on what laws can be enacted. And it assumes, incorrectly, that we are wiser than we are.