Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • Double-Standard: Violation of moral intuition of reciprocity.Violation of common

    Double-Standard: Violation of moral intuition of reciprocity.Violation of common law of reciprocity.Violation of Natural Law of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 15:29:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887333410431225857

    Reply addressees: @ramzpaul @voxday

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887326207917817860

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ramzpaul

    The days of demanding security for your ethnic state, while crying “racist” to others who want the same for their people are over.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887326207917817860

  • WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as w

    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

    A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as what it is, or we find people using a vague similarity as a means of either cherry picking from similar things or claiming the persuasive ability of truth content that is not present.

    As far as I know:

    There is a great difference between:

    – the true, the good, the preferable, the useful, the possible, and the not possible.

    1) Science(Truth) = the search for decidability independent of domain, individual, or group.

    2) Philosophy(Goodness) = search for decidability within a domain within a group regardless of whether it is true.

    3) Ideology(Preference) = search for allies in pursuit of a preference within a group, regardless of whether it is good or true.

    4) Technique(Utility) = the search for utility and possibility, regardless of self, or others, and regardless of preference, goodness, or truth.

    And I think it is very hard for other definitions to survive this test.

    In fact, I think it is very hard to claim other definitions are other than something between a deception and a fallacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 12:24:00 UTC

  • PAGANISM VS ABRAHAMISM (ADVICE VS COMMAND) PAGANISM = Myth (supernormalism) wher

    PAGANISM VS ABRAHAMISM (ADVICE VS COMMAND)

    PAGANISM = Myth (supernormalism) where in gods are but immortal men, bound by the laws of nature, and to whom we can appeal for assistance, but who herald our use of reason – and often fear our assent to superiority.

    ABRAHAMISM = Theism(supernaturalilsm) where gods bind nature and demand our submission by abandonment of our reason – and prohibit our assent to peerage.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 13:01:00 UTC

  • CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM VS MIXED ECONOMIES? (well intentioned fools) Capitalism

    CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM VS MIXED ECONOMIES?

    (well intentioned fools)

    Capitalism refers to the allocation of property to individuals providing incentives and the possibility of calculation.

    Socialism refers to the allocation of property to the state, eliminating incentives and the possibility of calculation.

    Mixed economies solve the problem of allocation of proceeds of cooperation under capitalism, by forcible redistribution of the proceeds largely using progressive taxation.

    Mainstream economists debate the degree of ‘takings’ that would achieve a pareto optimum, but evidence is that competition from the restoration of globalization under global consumer capitalism is lowering the maximum possible level of taxation, and that increased opportunity for extra-economic strategic expansion, may lead to wars, which is putting pressure on defense expenditures as well.

    For this variety of reasons, real incomes from other than financialization have been in constant decline as the world equilibrates, and just as conservatives feared, the left has created a moral hazard through expansion of the underclass in order to generate demand to compensate for the general decline in the distribution of productivity and its rewards.

    I always find well intentioned fools well intentioned. But we do not choose our governments. They are chosen for us by external circumstances, and we either adapt well to those circumstances or we do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 11:47:00 UTC

  • Honest(reporting) Truthful(survives personal criticism) Scientific Truth(survive

    Honest(reporting) Truthful(survives personal criticism) Scientific Truth(survives market for application) Analytic Truth(Ideal) Tautology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:34:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885839900792287232

    Reply addressees: @ahaspel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ahaspel

    Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

  • Proof: test of internal consistency – meaning ‘deductive possibility’. Proof = L

    Proof: test of internal consistency – meaning ‘deductive possibility’.
    Proof = Logical.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:30:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885838884902514688

    Reply addressees: @ahaspel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ahaspel

    Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

  • Philosophy: decidability within a domain. True: decidability independent of doma

    Philosophy: decidability within a domain. True: decidability independent of domain.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:24:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885837413632942080

    Reply addressees: @ahaspel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ahaspel

    Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

  • SELF OWNERSHIP IS A NONSENSE STATEMENT Self-ownership is a nonsense statement. Y

    SELF OWNERSHIP IS A NONSENSE STATEMENT

    Self-ownership is a nonsense statement. You can control your mind and body but you cannot OWN it without someone else to insure it such a thing. You might claim you can possess it one on one against a similar or weaker opponent. But you can’t own it without an insurer. And even then you can only own it to the degree made possible by the insurer(s). Ownership can only exist in relation to others. So we might deflate the ‘deception’ of self ownership into “I demand defense of my mind, body, actions, and the products of all three for my reciprocal defense of mind body actions and products of all all three.”

    (Yet another empty verbalism by the art of Pilpul.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:46:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: RESOURCES That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inven

    DEFINITION: RESOURCES

    That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inventory for the purpose of current and future transformation or consumption – from territory and all its natural assets, to perishable capital, to portable capital, to built capital, to institutional capital, to normative capital, to informational capital, to genetic capital.

    “That which we can use to transform state for our benefit.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 09:41:00 UTC

  • “BANKS” Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggreg

    “BANKS”

    Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggregating small amounts of money from those with small amounts of income to leverage the borrowing capacity of fiat money. The first question is only whether *bankers* are providing any coordination value that cannot be provided purely statistically (doubtful. very.) The second question is whether continuous interest or transactional fees are either beneficial(destructive) or preferable(necessary).

    From what I can defend, I see a need for:

    1) Mutual Funds (distributed investment risk for consumers)

    2) Credit Services (and counseling)

    3) Clearing Services (an account or accounts)

    And I do not see any value in an other services.

    The collateral system as I understand it does not achieve the desired purpose. It is a means of regulating BANKS not consumer or business behavior: the deprivation of credit alone is the only motivator for consumers. And as far as I an tell the collateral system is just a means for creating moral hazard and entrapment. The only criteria is whether individuals have an ability to pay from income streams, not whether we can ‘retaliate’ against their assets. Secondly, there is no reason why we require people to pay on a regular schedule rather than as a percentage of their income streams. Much of what we believe is true is not. Money is not money any longer.

    BANKING HIERARCHY: (class based services)

    check cashing services: underclass

    (hole in the market): working poor

    credit unions: labor class (renters)

    savings and loans: homeowners

    banks: small business banks

    commercial banks: medium and large business banks.

    semi-political banks: ‘financial institutions’

    the central bank: the private sector.

    the treasury: the public sector.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:31:00 UTC