Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • Q&A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOADING, FRAMING, AND OVERLOADING? —“Curt, you talk a

    Q&A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOADING, FRAMING, AND OVERLOADING?

    —“Curt, you talk about ‘loading and framing’ a lot. I have an idea of what you are talking about, but I’m wondering if you could provide a link to something to help me flesh out my understanding of the topic.”— Ed Hertzog

    Ed Hertzog:

    Great Question.

    -Framing:-

    There are a limited number of causal axis the mind can resolve into a consistent judgement without falling back on introspection – in other words, it is easy to overload our ability to reason with causal density.

    When we are overloaded by the frame, we abandon reason and resort to intuition – moral intuition.

    When we resort to moral intuition we resort to our metaphysical value judgements.

    This is a form of suggestion. Humans are very suggestible. Tremendously so. Do some research. Reason is limited. That’s why we had to invent math, logic, and science.

    (Hence why I constructed Testimonialism scientifically)

    -Loading-

    Loading is the art of attaching value judgements to facts. This is another form of suggestion. Because communication requires we use a sympathetic process, it is possible to use suggestion to load an argument with value judgements.

    (Hence why I constructed propertarianism amorally.)

    -Overloading-

    Saturating the discourse, or environment, with propaganda, or false-evidence. False propaganda is inexpensive under mass communication, and defeating fallacious arguments is expensive. We are subject to environmental suggestion.

    (Hence why I have outlawed unscientific political speech from the commons.)

    Protect the informational commons using the same rule of law we use to protect all other commons – including property rights themselves.

    You can research Chomsky and Lakoff (both masters of lying, which is why they understand the topic). But you will find that they seek to USE it rather than prohibit it. I do the opposite. Prohibit it. Fraud is fraud. No matter how elegant.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-08 10:41:00 UTC

  • BARTER (economics) – The direct trading of goods and services without the use of

    BARTER (economics) – The direct trading of goods and services without the use of an intermediary medium of exchange that produces prices rendering goods and services commensurable.

    MONEY (economics) – a medium of exchange, having the following properties:

    -Properties-

    Having the properties:

    1) universal market demand – as medium of exchange

    2) non-fungible unitary weight and measure – capable of creating commensurability and as a consequence prices.

    3) non-perishable – store of value (and retaining a stable price over time)

    4) portability (high exchange value relative to weight and volume)

    -Forms-

    Existing in the forms:

    Non-perishable (durable)

    1) commodity measure money(weight or volume – insured by market)

    2) commodity money(in fixed units, weighed and measured: insured by stamp)

    3) token money (commodity money substitute, an artificial commodity not redeemable), (??? not sure I should include this form of money substitute.

    Perishable (fragile)

    4) note-money(debt money – redeemably backed – dependent upon issuer ),

    6) credit money(debt money – partly-backed promises – dependent upon issuer),

    5) political share-money(credit money, unbacked, not redeemable – dependent upon issuer).

    7) electronic credit money (promises – wholly dependent upon issuer)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • COMMON LAW – Legally binding rules or principles of justice developed in the cou

    COMMON LAW – Legally binding rules or principles of justice developed in the course of history from the gradual accumulation of rulings by judges in individual cases, as differentiated from the kind of statute law embodied in special legal codes or statutes enacted by legislative assemblies or imposed by executive decrees.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-07 03:05:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity caus

    Propertarianism: External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 10:10:00 UTC

  • (Riffing off Michael Philip) Criminal, ethical, moral. The criminal spectrum con

    (Riffing off Michael Philip)

    Criminal, ethical, moral.

    The criminal spectrum consists of imposition of costs by manual means.

    The ethical spectrum consists of imposition of costs by means of information asymmetry.

    The moral spectrum consists of costs imposed by anonymous means.

    Norms may or many not be objectively moral.

    Laws may or may not be objectively moral.

    Under Propertarianism all law is required to be constructed by objectively moral means and everything else is just a contract for multiple exchanges the net of which must be productive, fully informed, warrantied and free of externality of the same criteria.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-27 10:47:00 UTC

  • SKIN IN THE GAME What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”? “I

    SKIN IN THE GAME

    What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”?

    “I promise” is a moral warranty. “I warranty” is a material warranty.

    Skin in the game.

    Testimonialism places skin in the game.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 06:08:00 UTC

  • JUSTIFICATIONISM VS TESTIMONIALISM Moral Permission vs Prohibition on Falsehoods

    JUSTIFICATIONISM VS TESTIMONIALISM

    Moral Permission vs Prohibition on Falsehoods.

    Justification is a normative and Positive activity

    —“One way of explaining the theory of justification is to say that a justified belief is one that we are “within our rights” in holding. The rights in question are neither political nor moral, however, but intellectual.

    In some way, each of us is responsible for what we believe. Beliefs are not typically formed completely at random, and thus we have an intellectual responsibility, or obligation, to try to believe what is true and to avoid believing what is false. An intellectually responsible act is within one’s intellectual rights in believing something; performing it, one is justified in one’s belief.

    Thus, justification is a normative notion. The standard definition is that a concept is normative if it is a concept regarding or depending on the norms, or obligations and permissions (very broadly construed), involved in human conduct. It is generally accepted that the concept of justification is normative, because it is defined as a concept regarding the norms of belief.”—

    Testimonialism (“Complete” Critical Rationalism) Is a Descriptive and Negative Activity.

    Instead of justifying why we have the right to believe something, we warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

    Through history we have asked people to warranty their honest, but not their truthfulness. This is becuase we did not know until very recently if not the past few years, how to warranty our speech as truthful. Now that we do, we can. Just as we incrementally suppressed violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, rent seeking, and various other forms of parasitism, why cannot we now increase the cost upon individuals to refrain from damage to the informational commons?

    This places a higher burden on members of a debate to refrain from engaging in fallacies, and holds people materially acceptable for doing so.

    Thus we have free truthful speech, but not free deceitful, wishful, biased, or erroneous speech.

    Just as we may use air, water, land, roads, parks and public buildings, we must take care not to damage it for others. We may not damage information either. Information is a commons. Why is it that we do not place the burden of truthfulness on those who would wish to make use of it?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 13:34:00 UTC

  • INFORMATION changes STATE, and DATA does not. Data (observation), Information (h

    INFORMATION changes STATE, and DATA does not.

    Data (observation), Information (hypothesis), knowledge (theory), wisdom(law)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-15 08:11:00 UTC

  • Rule of Law (Rule), Market for Commons (Government), Market for goods and svcs (

    Rule of Law (Rule), Market for Commons (Government), Market for goods and svcs (Market). No coercion.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 17:24:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641663502957064192

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641598856736608256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641598856736608256

  • As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap –

    As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap ->NRx ->Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 09:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641544641758777344

    Reply addressees: @wolfe_fan @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sacrorum_rex

    @mdavilamartinez I’ve thought of something I call “post-libertarianism”, something that can incorporate guys from Hoppe to Aristotle

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953