Form: Full Essay

Natural Law on The Declaration of Independence

THE ORIGIN OF OUR CONSTITUTION Our constitution was proposed as an alternative – a third way – an alternative to the parasitic rents of the arbitrary commands of the martial aristocracy, and the dysgenia, deceits, and parasitic rents of the church bureaucracy. A *purely meritocratic order* free of rents whether constructed of arbitrary commands or superstitious excuses – A constitution of Natural Law. And the restoration of our ancient meritocratic order. Our founders created an *alternative* to the classes of europe, and not a duplication of it. All nations need not be the same. Some for the low, some for the strong, and some for the meritocratic. All those who pursue rents via arbitrary command and rents by deceit, merey flee to the green fields of meritocratic orders to parasitically profit from the high trust that they engender. Then drive them asunder through arbitrary command and incremental deception. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine THE FOUNDERS WERE USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO DESCRIBE NATURAL LAW Natural Law, and the writings of Locke, Smith, and Hume were understood by Jefferson and Adams, as the most current technology available. But that he, and they, were still victims of the poetry of scripture and wrote their laws in that verse. So they used *higher context* and less-precise language and I’m using *lower context* and more-precise language, in order to prevent ‘interpretation’ (abuse) of Natural Law through the act of misrepresenting terms written in high context as permissive, and therefore eliminating possibility of abuse through ‘interpretation’ THERE IS ONLY ONE MORAL AND JUST GOVERNMENT There is but one moral course of government, and that is the construction, operation, and preservation, of a condition of Natural Law, by Rule of Law, under Universal Suffrage of Natural Law, whose application is discovered by the Common Law by Judges, under the requirement that all words and deeds be limited to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of Property-in-Toto, free of imposition of costs by externality against the Property-in-Toto of others. All else consists of the predatory farming of man for the benefit of others.

THE DECLARATION

UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE When in the course of human events it becomes preferable for one people to dissolve the political institutions, treaties, laws, agreements, capital, and territorial commons which have united them, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of all mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal in ability, potential, and circumstance; that to prosper despite our inequality we must voluntarily cooperate on shared means, even if on competing ends; and to preserve our cooperation our disputes must be decided by the equal application of the law; and as such we must establish equal rights under the law; and that among these rights is Natural Law of Reciprocity: the right to Life, Body, Mind, Action and the Pursuit and Accumulation of interests in Property, for Self, Family, Clan, Tribe, Kin and Nation, through productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, free of the imposition of costs by externality, against the demonstrated interests in property of others. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and limited by the the Natural Law of Reciprocity — That whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Obligation of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to produce and preserve those those rights and achieve those ends. Prudence dictates that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deprive them of their rights, it is their right, it is their duty, and it is the demand of Nature and Nature’s God, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security, rights, and prosperity. Such has been the patient sufferance of our Families, Clans, Tribes, and Nations; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Government, all its Branches and all its Bureaucracies, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the circumvention of Natural Law, the subjugation of the different States and their peoples to an empire by the subversion of the constitution upon which our states were found, and the terms by which we consent to be governed. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world: the creation and expansion of military, political, and financial empire against the interests of our peoples; the construction of a vast privileged, parasitic, unaccountable bureaucracy, the submission of our sovereignty to predatory and hostile international institutions, the submission of our sovereignty to hostile foreign treaties, our suffrage of arbitrary legislation by art and artifice, our submission to judicial activism by art and artifice, the circumvention of the constitution by art and artifice, the deprivation of rights of juridical defense in matters of tax, the deprivation of equality in matters of debts, the purchase of political influence in pursuit of privileges against interests hostile to the people, the use of pseudoscientific accounting financial device and deception, the forcible payment of interest on fiat credit and the unjust privatization of the fruit of that commons, the destruction of intergenerational lending (consumer protections) entrapment clauses, punishment profits advertising and marketing scams pseudoscientific drugs and supplements and food. (funding of pseudoscience) (forcible takeover of the academy) (undermining our military culture that is thousands of years old) (failing to care for our woulded soldiers in wars of adventure) and hostile immigration by intention the failure to secure our borders the falure to secure our information the militarization of our police forces the arming of our bureaucrats the submission of our people to search the circumvention of our governors by direct election of our senators the suppression of our religion, it’s replacement by adoption and expansion of an Alien and deceitful pseudoscientific cult via artful accounting, cherry-picking of measures, and wilful ignorance of the changes in the capital of kin, culture, norm, tradition, and civilization; the forcible monopolization of our education, its use for indoctrination against our religion, and for the cult of the state; – the sum object of which is the destruction of our families, clans, tribes, nations, culture, traditions, and our civilization through the decimation of our peoples, the prohibition of their religion, their history, traditions, and laws. —- end list — He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding and their permission to rule in our stead. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of _________, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these These States, solemnly publish and declare, This goverment be unmade, the government and all its institutions, laws, treaties and debts, dissolved, a new constitution adopted, and that our rights under natural law be restored. That we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

STATE OF THE EMPIRE All revolutions are dismissed in prospect and obvious in retrospect. But never has an empire been more fragile, nor could one fall more quickly. The people cannot retreat to the fields. They have no stores of food. A full quarter have no monetary reserves, and half only a few month’s worth. The food, gasoline, transport, power, water, gas, communications, emergency services, police, military, and financial sector have but days of reserves and weeks of tolerance. A few men in each city can overwhelm services. A few days of fear and the streets will be full of predators. The world has turned hostile due to The State’s Ideological and Imperial Adventure, and meanwhile patient powers long-seeking revival and recompense wait for opportunity to seize past glories, and we and Europe are held hostage at home, and surrounded by waves of barbarians of greater mobility and lethality than the bronze or iron age migrations – just as lusty with envy, avarice, and aggression, and even more likely to cause repeat of those dark ages. No longer do we live in an era where the many must march in the streets. No longer need more than but a fraction of one percent of the men commit themselves to heady murder. No longer must we seize leaders, institutions, fortresses or armories. No longer does the Peace of Westphalia limit actors, whether foreign or domestic – what comes is a war of all against all, and a fall like no other in history. So we pray thee take heed. Do not dismiss our entreaty. Our demands are right, just, possible and in the interests of our peoples. And if demanding fails we shall compel. And if we compel, we will make the Horrors of the French Revolution turn so feeble, that men will remember our prosecution of you for ten thousand years. For when all our ancestors that have been before, and all our descendants that have yet to be, demand our lives in their honor, we will not shirk our duty to them. And we will have no mercy in our execution. REMEDY

June 22, 2017
Natural Law on The Declaration of Independence

THE ORIGIN OF OUR CONSTITUTION Our constitution was proposed as an alternative – a third way – an alternative to the parasitic rents of the arbitrary commands of the martial aristocracy, and the dysgenia, deceits, and parasitic rents of the church bureaucracy. A *purely meritocratic order* free of rents whether constructed of arbitrary commands or superstitious excuses – A constitution of Natural Law. And the restoration of our ancient meritocratic order. Our founders created an *alternative* to the classes of europe, and not a duplication of it. All nations need not be the same. Some for the low, some for the strong, and some for the meritocratic. All those who pursue rents via arbitrary command and rents by deceit, merey flee to the green fields of meritocratic orders to parasitically profit from the high trust that they engender. Then drive them asunder through arbitrary command and incremental deception. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine THE FOUNDERS WERE USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO DESCRIBE NATURAL LAW Natural Law, and the writings of Locke, Smith, and Hume were understood by Jefferson and Adams, as the most current technology available. But that he, and they, were still victims of the poetry of scripture and wrote their laws in that verse. So they used *higher context* and less-precise language and I’m using *lower context* and more-precise language, in order to prevent ‘interpretation’ (abuse) of Natural Law through the act of misrepresenting terms written in high context as permissive, and therefore eliminating possibility of abuse through ‘interpretation’ THERE IS ONLY ONE MORAL AND JUST GOVERNMENT There is but one moral course of government, and that is the construction, operation, and preservation, of a condition of Natural Law, by Rule of Law, under Universal Suffrage of Natural Law, whose application is discovered by the Common Law by Judges, under the requirement that all words and deeds be limited to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of Property-in-Toto, free of imposition of costs by externality against the Property-in-Toto of others. All else consists of the predatory farming of man for the benefit of others.

THE DECLARATION

UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE When in the course of human events it becomes preferable for one people to dissolve the political institutions, treaties, laws, agreements, capital, and territorial commons which have united them, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of all mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal in ability, potential, and circumstance; that to prosper despite our inequality we must voluntarily cooperate on shared means, even if on competing ends; and to preserve our cooperation our disputes must be decided by the equal application of the law; and as such we must establish equal rights under the law; and that among these rights is Natural Law of Reciprocity: the right to Life, Body, Mind, Action and the Pursuit and Accumulation of interests in Property, for Self, Family, Clan, Tribe, Kin and Nation, through productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, free of the imposition of costs by externality, against the demonstrated interests in property of others. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and limited by the the Natural Law of Reciprocity — That whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Obligation of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to produce and preserve those those rights and achieve those ends. Prudence dictates that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deprive them of their rights, it is their right, it is their duty, and it is the demand of Nature and Nature’s God, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security, rights, and prosperity. Such has been the patient sufferance of our Families, Clans, Tribes, and Nations; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Government, all its Branches and all its Bureaucracies, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the circumvention of Natural Law, the subjugation of the different States and their peoples to an empire by the subversion of the constitution upon which our states were found, and the terms by which we consent to be governed. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world: the creation and expansion of military, political, and financial empire against the interests of our peoples; the construction of a vast privileged, parasitic, unaccountable bureaucracy, the submission of our sovereignty to predatory and hostile international institutions, the submission of our sovereignty to hostile foreign treaties, our suffrage of arbitrary legislation by art and artifice, our submission to judicial activism by art and artifice, the circumvention of the constitution by art and artifice, the deprivation of rights of juridical defense in matters of tax, the deprivation of equality in matters of debts, the purchase of political influence in pursuit of privileges against interests hostile to the people, the use of pseudoscientific accounting financial device and deception, the forcible payment of interest on fiat credit and the unjust privatization of the fruit of that commons, the destruction of intergenerational lending (consumer protections) entrapment clauses, punishment profits advertising and marketing scams pseudoscientific drugs and supplements and food. (funding of pseudoscience) (forcible takeover of the academy) (undermining our military culture that is thousands of years old) (failing to care for our woulded soldiers in wars of adventure) and hostile immigration by intention the failure to secure our borders the falure to secure our information the militarization of our police forces the arming of our bureaucrats the submission of our people to search the circumvention of our governors by direct election of our senators the suppression of our religion, it’s replacement by adoption and expansion of an Alien and deceitful pseudoscientific cult via artful accounting, cherry-picking of measures, and wilful ignorance of the changes in the capital of kin, culture, norm, tradition, and civilization; the forcible monopolization of our education, its use for indoctrination against our religion, and for the cult of the state; – the sum object of which is the destruction of our families, clans, tribes, nations, culture, traditions, and our civilization through the decimation of our peoples, the prohibition of their religion, their history, traditions, and laws. —- end list — He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding and their permission to rule in our stead. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of _________, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these These States, solemnly publish and declare, This goverment be unmade, the government and all its institutions, laws, treaties and debts, dissolved, a new constitution adopted, and that our rights under natural law be restored. That we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

STATE OF THE EMPIRE All revolutions are dismissed in prospect and obvious in retrospect. But never has an empire been more fragile, nor could one fall more quickly. The people cannot retreat to the fields. They have no stores of food. A full quarter have no monetary reserves, and half only a few month’s worth. The food, gasoline, transport, power, water, gas, communications, emergency services, police, military, and financial sector have but days of reserves and weeks of tolerance. A few men in each city can overwhelm services. A few days of fear and the streets will be full of predators. The world has turned hostile due to The State’s Ideological and Imperial Adventure, and meanwhile patient powers long-seeking revival and recompense wait for opportunity to seize past glories, and we and Europe are held hostage at home, and surrounded by waves of barbarians of greater mobility and lethality than the bronze or iron age migrations – just as lusty with envy, avarice, and aggression, and even more likely to cause repeat of those dark ages. No longer do we live in an era where the many must march in the streets. No longer need more than but a fraction of one percent of the men commit themselves to heady murder. No longer must we seize leaders, institutions, fortresses or armories. No longer does the Peace of Westphalia limit actors, whether foreign or domestic – what comes is a war of all against all, and a fall like no other in history. So we pray thee take heed. Do not dismiss our entreaty. Our demands are right, just, possible and in the interests of our peoples. And if demanding fails we shall compel. And if we compel, we will make the Horrors of the French Revolution turn so feeble, that men will remember our prosecution of you for ten thousand years. For when all our ancestors that have been before, and all our descendants that have yet to be, demand our lives in their honor, we will not shirk our duty to them. And we will have no mercy in our execution. REMEDY

June 22, 2017
ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE (important)(

ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE

(important)(i don’t address this often enough)

—“Curt, why do you say that accounting is fragile?”—

Great Question.

Our accounting systems have largely remained a technology of the era of their invention: the Age of Sail and Gold Standard with the production cycles of agrarian and international shipping.

We still treat fiat money(shares in the state as a money substitute) as if it’s money proper (commodity money).

If you want to make it simple:

1) risk is not accounted for in accounting, reporting, or taxation, and is the inverse of reality.

2) All accounting systems ‘launder’ money by pooling it, rather than tracing it.

3) The financial system is archaic and predatory.

4) Multiple audiences require different ‘distortions’ of management (true cash) accounting, yet we have no technical means (now) of producing those reports from a single act of data entry, because money is not traceable but pooled.

5) Because of this accounting is far behind, terribly complex, and understates fragility (risk) dramatically.

6) it is incredibly profitable for the state and the financial sector to preserve this universal deception that obscures the truth at the expense of the entrepreneurial, management, professional, craftsmanly, and laboring classes.

GOVERNMENT DISTORTION

Interference by Calendar (monthly) rather than Lunar (weekly) measurements.

Interference and Distortion by Taxation and Double Taxation

Interference and Distortion by taxes on dividends vs appreciation and loss.

Interference by Amortization and Depreciation to maximize taxation.

Lack of taxation by liquidity (personal, small cap, large cap) creates scale and fragility

THE PROBLEM

1) Business is volatile, management actions take time to produce results, and so risk is not accounted for in either accounting nor in taxation.

2) Few capital intensive businesses, more knowledge and talent and customer-relationshp businesses, none of which the company can ‘own’ but the upper 10% of which constitutes its entire competitive difference, and persistence.

3) R&D off book by small companies, profit by large companies that scale but buy smaller companies that do R&D.

4) Few inter-decade (inter-generatinoal) companies, and larger networks of increasingly fragile self-organizing companies with less predicable outcomes.

5) “Pensions” and liabilities (incalculable intergenerational transfers).

6) Preferential treatment given to landlords and others during liquidation and those that have access to legal teams, on a first come first serve basis rather than by orderly payments. in other words, in financial duress the courts should have no recourse to cause preference in payments, and lender should “beware”.

7) Vast, unimaginable, thefts on scales unheard of in history by manipulation of courts and financialization of agreements. (lender privilege rather than lender beware).

8) Distribution of liquidity through the financial system to the benefit of the financial system yet running into the zero bound problem rather than distribution of liquidity directly to consumers to the benefit of the consumer and business sectors.

9) The asymmetric power of lobbyists in funding political campaigns such that those attempts at reform since the 1980’s when the problems were first accepted, were

10) Fallacy (and harm) of Common-Shareholder-as-owner which allows large financial interests to takeover companies, extend the risk, take profits and allow failure. (Same for george soros. Violates principle of productive voluntary fully informed and warrantied exchanges).

What this all means is that the political, financial classes constantly extract money from the SMB space, the entrepreneur, the manager, the craftsman and the laborer by the gradual but constant transfer of risk downward, and the redistribution of gains upward, thereby institutionalizing the socialization of losses and privatization of gains.

ACCOUNTING DISTORTION

Management reporting (operating success), vs bank reporting(credit worthiness) vs tax reporting (taxation) vs investor reporting(balance sheet) vs stock market reporting (nonsense).

The method of recording financial transactions and the work necessary to produce various reports for various audiences, means that accounting does what serves its interests, and the truth of the business is obscured from everyone and the viability of the going concern vastly overstated. There is too little algorithmic processing in accounting. it’s still manual or ‘macros’ (policies).

Going Concern/Asset (credit) Value/ Tax Value / Liquidation Value. AFAIK the only ‘value’ proper is liquidation value, and that’s empirically the case. (In addition, conflating market CAP with market VALUE should be illegal. I would argue that PE ratio is the only )

Selective Accounting (not measuring market potential vs debt). It is entirely possible to measure market capture and report it month to month and this is the best indicator of management performance, and management performance is nonsense without it.

Conflating Operating from Non Operating Performance. Businesses should report on profit and loss from operations and produce separate profit and loss from capital operations, tax, credit, and shareholder reports from the same data.

Eliminating intergenerational transfers. ie: there can be no post liquidation debts constructed – period, and no debts beyond the operating horizon of the business.

Pooling (laundering) money – (obscuring) rather than tracing (transparency) There is no reason all financial transactions are not tagged and directed and traceable down to the penny (just as they are with Blockchain(bitcoin) transactions.

IMPORTANT: My solution to this problem of pooling is to use blockchain ledgers on legally mandated financial categories so that each financial transaction inside an accounting system transfers ledger values, producing perfect transparency. This produces a perfect audit trail not open to ‘fudging’ which is so common.

GOVERNMENT

The government for example measures velocity but not capital. That’s what GDP does. Marylin Waring (a horrible feminist) at at least addresses the issue in the production of offspring. Mother’s production of children is a capital good. Yet we don’t account for it.

Average age is a capital good.

IQ is a capital good yet we don’t account for it.

Personalities are a capital good but we don’t account for them.

Trust is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

Truth telling is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

Rule of Law is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

Monuments, parks, architecture (aesthetics) are a capital good.

Work to Leisure ratio is a capital good.

Savings are a capital good.

Homogeneity of race and culture is a capital good.

BLAME IT ON ACCOUNTING AS A PSEUDOSCIENCE

We can easily say that the evils of the 20th century are produced by a combination of mathematical pseudoscience (keynesian economics) and monetary accounting (pseudoscience) because they both cherry pick consumption rather than changes in the state of capital

Money is no longer money. Accounting no longer accounts. We are flying blind, and fragile, and burning down 1000 years of accumulated cultural capital.

How do we separate science from pseudoscience?

FULL INTERTEMPORAL ACCOUNTING OF OPPORTUNITY, COST, RISK, AND CONSEQUENCE.

Is our accounting a science for the purpose of truth? Or is it a pseudoscience for the purpose of deceit?

We know the answer.

And we have known for twenty years how to fix the problem.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 09:01:00 UTC

June 22, 2017
PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology, and method of pedagogy.

However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth – he doesn’t. Instead, he conflates the personally preferable the common good and the necessarily true.

Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudorationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

===RESPONSE TO CRITICISM===

—“You seem to equate fictionalism, i.e. system that deals in fictitious, imaginary semi-abstract universe and the lies….”—

No. FIction vs Fictionalism. Fictionalism is a technical term. It means misrepresenting a fiction as existential or true.

a) Historicize: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

b) Fictionalize: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

c) Fictionalism: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.

Compare 1) Science(measurements that remove error,bias,deceit), Common Law: empirical evidence of disputes. Economics: empirical record of demonstrated preferences. History (narrative of cause and effect), Literature(Fiction), Myth (hyperbole), under anthropomorphic gods, demigods, heroes all subject to the laws of the universe, who represent portfolios of virtues and sins for personal ends with 2) idealism supernaturalism, and conflation: supernatural authoritarianism, for the purpose of communicating POLITICAL ends, in which history, myth, laws, archetypes, ideals, utopias, and false promises of paradise in the present or after death are conflated. The most common examples are monotheistic religion (pseudo-myth) and mathematical platonism, marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern pseudo-rationalism.

There is a difference between use of deflation by monomyth, plot, archetype and virtue, and use of conflation in matters of wisdom of the self, and the use of deceit in politics. Virtues assist us in maximizing opportunities while limiting negative consequences to ourselves and the polity. The individual can enact his own compromises and exchanges, but politics is not but a proxy for violence and is not a matter of wisdom but DECIDABILITY. If not, then it is not a matter for politics which can only be decidable if it is empirical.

THis is how the left works: to circumvent the compromises of exchange necessary for the political to consist of moral actions (non parasitism).

—“The fairy tale – is it a lie to be exterminated? It seems to be an idea so grotesque, that only the complete anti-humanist would dwell on it.”—

A fairy tale consists of fiction (myth) not fictionalism (virgin birth of a savior).

—“Well, it does. Because decidability in real world situation has nothing to do in general with verifiable truth in Popperian sense nor with falsifiability of the hypothetical proposition.”–

Personal decidability does not, But POLITICAL decidability DOES. Because personal choice requires non-imposition, and political decidability requires imposition..

There is a very good reason why the west, using common law, deflationary truth, deflated institutions, maintained the separation of religion(wisdom) and state(law). And that reason is largely responsible for western rates of development versus their nearest competitor the chinese who also avoided conflation.

—“Now, I totally open to the idea that the scientific truth one day may tell me a good answer to that dilemma, but I am dealing with not a fictional proposal of a complete ULTIMATE science, but with a real and extremely limited science that does not know much about how an individual functions, nor how the society functions in a sense relevant to a question at hand.”—

The fact that you cannot imagine that it is possible to create tests of dimensions in natural language the same way we create tests of dimensions in mathematical language is simply due to the very recent solutions to questions of language in philosophy, the development of algorithmic language in computer science, and the scientific method’s inversion of justificationism (intent) with criticism (darwinian survival of ideas in the market for application), and the very recent confirmation of stoic acquisitionism, which I’ve expressed as propertarianism. In other words, locke was close to the stoics: we can in fact reduce not only all moral action to statements of property, but all of psychology and sociology as statements of property – thus, providing the social sciences with the final unit of commensurability: property.

So the fact that you don’t know those things is simply because it’s taken us from 300AD to the present to vacate enough of Abrahamic Fictionalism to restore our thought to it’s deflationary state 1700 years ago.

Now if that loss of 1700 years, and the rather obvious fact that by Archimedes greece had started the industrial revolution, is not enough of a criticism of immigration of non-european underclasses, and the cancer of abrahamic fictionalism, I don’t know what is.

We lost four great civilizations to Abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity, and islam, and we are currently in the process of being forced into another migratory dark age by the fact that Abrahamic deceptions are so appealing to women and the underclasses.

Is there a greater moral crime in all of history than Abrahamic Fictionalism? I don’t think anything comes close. Abrahamic fictionalism has no equivalent. It destroyed the ancient world, and it is in the process of destroying the modern.

1) Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity > Islamism defeated Greek and Roman Reason and destroyed north african, levantine, persian, byzantine and roman civilizations, and brought about the dark age through continuous raiding of the west.

2) German Rationalism > Jewish Marxism > French Postmodernism > Puritan Feminism are defeating the anglo germanic enlightenment. The same process is being repeated. The only people to resist the abrahamic deceits were the north sea peoples who ‘saved themselves’ from Christianity, and the Chinese who built a wall to keep out the barbarians and preserved their kinship purity even at economic cost to them.

So there is a very great difference between decidable literature of history, law, and science, and wisdom literature in the form of fiction, and fictionalism, in the form of abrahamic conflation and deception by suggestion.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 15:51:00 UTC

June 21, 2017
WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS? (posting separate

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS?

(posting separately)

I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.

THE SHORT VERSION

If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.

If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.

If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.

But let’s go into some detail.

THE SCHOOLS

The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.

The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’.

So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.

Austrian (Virginia/GMU):

The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)

Freshwater (Chicago):

The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)

Saltwater (New York):

The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)

This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.

At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.

UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

-Full Accounting (Ending Economic Cherry-Picking)-

At present, we measure economic velocity (relative change) in may different ways but we do not measure absolute change: the change in state of the total set of capital. In other words, the economic profession produces Income Statements but never Balance Sheets. So in the very broad set of capital that constitutes a polity and its economy we actually measure almost nothing: genetic, cultural, normative, scope-knowledge (what), technical knowledge (how), legal, institutional, territorial, resource, monumental, built, physical, and private.

The measurement of relative change (velocity) rather than changes in capital stocks, is the reason why economics consists very largely of cherry picking in order to justify our different gender, class, cultural, and civilizational biases.

So, this is why the Krugman/Delong and the French, The Chicago and mainstream american, and the ‘old fashioned’ Austrians all make different claims about economics: None of them practices full accounting, and therefore engages in cherry-picking. (They will all give you similar excuses. Which I ought to start collecting for the sake of posterity and future laughter.) The reason is simple: (a) we lack sufficient data because of our accounting methods and the financial use of ‘pooling’ to provide sufficient data. (b) we willfully do not measure changes in capital. (c) the people who best understand this problem are in the financial sector and profit from it. (d) the people who are in government lack the knowledge (and usually the intellectual capacity) to understand it. (e) because it is difficult to understand it is (fairly) difficult to legislate changes to the status quo. (f) if the people did understand what is done to them (they intuit it’s wrong but can’t explain it) they would make the french revolution look like church service.

-Economics (Money)-

There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.

-Government (Production of Commons)-

It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).

THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL

Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.

So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.

He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).

Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.

But this is logically and empirically false.

People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;

People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.

Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.

Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).

What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.

So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.

And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.

THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS

We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.

The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.

The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.

The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine.

Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle).

The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.

Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.

-Deflation vs Conflation-

Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)

While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).

Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.

Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.

This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).

So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.

Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.

CLOSING

So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*

—-

NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)

(https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/)

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 09:14:00 UTC

June 13, 2017
The Not So Austrian School vs Science and Mathematics

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS? I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism. THE SHORT VERSION If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints. If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above. But let’s go into some detail. THE SCHOOLS The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value. The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’. So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways. Austrian (Virginia/GMU): The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position) Freshwater (Chicago): The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position) Saltwater (New York): The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al) This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy. At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought. UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS -Full Accounting (Ending Economic Cherry-Picking)- At present, we measure economic velocity (relative change) in may different ways but we do not measure absolute change: the change in state of the total set of capital. In other words, the economic profession produces Income Statements but never Balance Sheets. So in the very broad set of capital that constitutes a polity and its economy we actually measure almost nothing: genetic, cultural, normative, scope-knowledge (what), technical knowledge (how), legal, institutional, territorial, resource, monumental, built, physical, and private. The measurement of relative change (velocity) rather than changes in capital stocks, is the reason why economics consists very largely of cherry picking in order to justify our different gender, class, cultural, and civilizational biases. So, this is why the Krugman/Delong and the French, The Chicago and mainstream american, and the ‘old fashioned’ Austrians all make different claims about economics: None of them practices full accounting, and therefore engages in cherry-picking. (They will all give you similar excuses. Which I ought to start collecting for the sake of posterity and future laughter.) The reason is simple: (a) we lack sufficient data because of our accounting methods and the financial use of ‘pooling’ to provide sufficient data. (b) we willfully do not measure changes in capital. (c) the people who best understand this problem are in the financial sector and profit from it. (d) the people who are in government lack the knowledge (and usually the intellectual capacity) to understand it. (e) because it is difficult to understand it is (fairly) difficult to legislate changes to the status quo. (f) if the people did understand what is done to them (they intuit it’s wrong but can’t explain it) they would make the french revolution look like church service. -Economics (Money)- There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment. -Government (Production of Commons)- It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley). THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current. So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally. He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism). Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology. But this is logically and empirically false. People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information; People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values. Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value. Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices). What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation. So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law. And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant. THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal. The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law. The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’. The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine. Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle). The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’. Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic. -Deflation vs Conflation- Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion) While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms). Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects. Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead. This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real). So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe. Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics. CLOSING So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. *I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.* —- NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism) (https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/)

June 12, 2017
The Not So Austrian School vs Science and Mathematics

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS? I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism. THE SHORT VERSION If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints. If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above. But let’s go into some detail. THE SCHOOLS The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value. The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’. So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways. Austrian (Virginia/GMU): The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position) Freshwater (Chicago): The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position) Saltwater (New York): The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al) This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy. At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought. UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS -Full Accounting (Ending Economic Cherry-Picking)- At present, we measure economic velocity (relative change) in may different ways but we do not measure absolute change: the change in state of the total set of capital. In other words, the economic profession produces Income Statements but never Balance Sheets. So in the very broad set of capital that constitutes a polity and its economy we actually measure almost nothing: genetic, cultural, normative, scope-knowledge (what), technical knowledge (how), legal, institutional, territorial, resource, monumental, built, physical, and private. The measurement of relative change (velocity) rather than changes in capital stocks, is the reason why economics consists very largely of cherry picking in order to justify our different gender, class, cultural, and civilizational biases. So, this is why the Krugman/Delong and the French, The Chicago and mainstream american, and the ‘old fashioned’ Austrians all make different claims about economics: None of them practices full accounting, and therefore engages in cherry-picking. (They will all give you similar excuses. Which I ought to start collecting for the sake of posterity and future laughter.) The reason is simple: (a) we lack sufficient data because of our accounting methods and the financial use of ‘pooling’ to provide sufficient data. (b) we willfully do not measure changes in capital. (c) the people who best understand this problem are in the financial sector and profit from it. (d) the people who are in government lack the knowledge (and usually the intellectual capacity) to understand it. (e) because it is difficult to understand it is (fairly) difficult to legislate changes to the status quo. (f) if the people did understand what is done to them (they intuit it’s wrong but can’t explain it) they would make the french revolution look like church service. -Economics (Money)- There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment. -Government (Production of Commons)- It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley). THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current. So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally. He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism). Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology. But this is logically and empirically false. People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information; People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values. Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value. Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices). What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation. So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law. And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant. THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal. The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law. The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’. The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine. Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle). The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’. Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic. -Deflation vs Conflation- Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion) While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms). Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects. Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead. This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real). So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe. Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics. CLOSING So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. *I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.* —- NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism) (https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/)

June 12, 2017
THE REASONS FOR THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE WORLD – THE CORRECTION OF MALTHUS. (ve

THE REASONS FOR THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE WORLD – THE CORRECTION OF MALTHUS.

(very important narrative)(lots of quotable ideas for your use)(read more than once)

1) People justify their intuitions, justify their wants, justify their seizure of opportunities, justify (cast) their actions as goods.

This is the reason why truthful speech (measurements), and science (measurements), and measurement (mathematics) are so ‘unnatural’ for us: we did not so much evolve language to lie, but to negotiate – not speak the truth as we understand the meaning of that term today.

The principle function of public intellectuals is to create an excuse that survives criticism in the context. Just as has been done among all humans in all of recorded history – and seemingly before it.

2) For most of our evolutionary history as humans, as we increasingly unified, we have attempted to invent justifications for imposing one set of preferences (goods) over many other sets and combinations thereof.

The question is, why did we unify? Because life on the farm as slave, serf, laborer, freeman was very hard, and people were poor, and powerless, and unification was *always* preferable to division in cases other than invasion and war.

3) The the enlightenment, the agrarian and industrial revolution, and the rifle changed this condition. Colonialism and world wars expanded the scope of the change in condition. For the first time in history the marginal difference in power between peoples was largely that of numbers.

We can look at greek/roman reason along similar lines: having ‘succeeded’ in obtaining sovereignty in fact over the east if not the entire mediterranean, people sought excuses for the current order (socrates), the perfection and expansion (plato), cause of the condition (aristotle), and how to enjoy it (epicurus and zeno). But these are all ‘excuses’ for the use of commons (opportunities) constructed by the population density of the community.

4) So in search of new excuses, to seize newly possible opportunities, people saw greater advantage in separation or rotation than they had in the past tripartite(deflationary) and binary(conflationary) orders. As such they changed their arguments from the GOOD AND MORAL, reasons to ally, to the BAD AND IMMORAL reasons to either rotate (and capture capital) or separate (and divide capital).

5) The upper class conviction of the morality of the Tripartite (binary) structure of social orders was argued as myth, but was actually simply a law of nature (Pareto). The oppression myth (Abrahamism) and gullibility in the service of ambitious members of the middle classes, gave the lower classes the various middle class enlightenment fantasies then working class marxist fantasies: that rotation was possible because people had been oppressed. When in fact that people had been incrementally domesticated by peoples who were demonstrably superior in abilities to create families of individuals that could survive the competition of the various markets, ranging from survival to power.

6) Given that this inescapable hierarchy exists among peoples, and given that different peoples from different regions consist of different distributions of low and high abilities, and given the universal demonstration of kin selection in problems of access to power to determine the production and distribution of commons, and therefore the transfer of wealth from more productive to less productive (and therefore dysgenic) in reversal of the transfer of wealth from the less productive (labor) to the more productive (middle and therefore eugenic), the peoples who are productive and their elites who choose commons in favor of their productivity are no longer finding utility in cooperation and scale, because they would be reduced to lower status without the elites forming beneficial commons and containing their proceeds to kin.

Meanwhile those who are ascendent but not competitive want to displace those productive people and their productive order, and impose one that is in their favor.

7) So what we have seen is the incremental dissolution of the via-positiva of the value of scale, and its replacement with the incremental construction of kinship lines for the purpose of preserving the advantages for the average and lower folk who, because of culture and demographic distribution, benefit when their elites are in control, and they are not parasited upon by others. So in reversal of Abrahamic revolt against aristocracy, people are simply working to capture what they can for their races, cultures, tribes and clans.

8) There is a difference between justifying takings (conquest), and justifying takings in the absence of not taking (reciprocity). So there are four positions: i) conquer and preserve (conservatives), ii) conquer and rotate (leftists), iii) separate (nationalists), iv) sit it out.(libertarians and uncommitted).

9) So those people that will NOT benefit from the conquest of their social and political orders and the commons advantageous to them, are in competition with those people what WILL benefit from the conquest of the existing social and political order and the commons advantageous to them. And some people are wealthy and comfortable enough that they will simply sit out the war.

10) From this understanding, no one is ‘thinking, or reasoning’ at all. Everyone is following his genetic interests just as evolution demands, and merely looking for excuses to justify his evolutionary demands. We are but riders on the elephant.

Ergo, all invention is but excuse-making on the part of genes. And this is really the most important rule of the evolution of knowledge that we can state. These excuses reduce or increase the friction of reorganization in pursuit of genetic advantage. Just as politics and war are just excuses that reduce or increase the friction of reorganization in pursuit of seizing genetic opportunity. (as it must be for life to survive).

11) The only reciprocal solution that I can identify is separatism, by which each kin group pays the cost of domesticating its kin group.

12) I find very little material differences between the abilities of the different races, subraces and tribes that is not a function of (a) scale of the underclass (the mean), (b) degree of neoteny, (c) the success in neoteny of preserving the female verbal skill and distributing it to both genders, even at the expense of the male spatial skill. As far as I know these three simple traits determine the fate of a people.

-Peak Human-

13) There is a point – and we are at it – where there is no longer any ‘reserve’ in the human genome that is left untapped. In fact, I think we are currently engaged in hyperconsumption of our abilities to deliterious effects. LIke transferring war from violence to economics, we have transferred physical stress into mental stress. WE now have illnesses of the mind, as we had previously illnesses of the body.

The human body cannot evolve fast enough to compensate for the rate of adaptation of the mind and therefore our actions, and therefore our social orders. We have maximized the available resource of the existing human body.

14) So just as in knowledge of all things we are no longer looking for new categories, but simply seeking the reduction and elimination of error made possible by the evolution of the human mind as a tool for negotiation and deception more so than truthfulness (correspondence with reality) – we are now seeking to reduce parasitism in our social orders because no more improvements can be made by scale, and therefore all advantages come from the elimination of disadvantages.

15) Therefore the solution to harmony is via negativa: the continued reversal of the value of scale, and the restoration of nations.

-Let Us All Bloom-

16) Let a thousand nations bloom. Let us all transcend at no one’s expense. Rather than justify the transcendence of some over that of others.

17) Or worse, justify the devolution of mankind altogether. Which seems to be the consequence of unlimited cooperation: All of Hinduism, All of Islam, All of South Amerindians. The scale of the underclass is now so great that the productivity of the people is insufficient for the production of incentives necessary for the formation of a voluntary organization of production (markets).

18) The bottom is too heavy. Malthus was wrong. It is not that the numbers will defeat us. It is that the numbers of those lacking agency will defeat us because the cost of their transformation from animal to man is simply too high for the productivity available to them in the absence of technology and markets produced externally to them.

This is the principal problem facing man.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine.

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 08:54:00 UTC

June 12, 2017
What Are The Shortcomings Of The Austrian School Of Economics’ Understanding Of Economics?

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS?
I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.
THE SHORT VERSION
If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.
If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.
If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.
But let’s go into some detail.
THE SCHOOLS
The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.
The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’.
So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.
Austrian (Virginia):
The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)
Freshwater (Chicago):
The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)
Saltwater (New York):
The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)
This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.
At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.
UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS
-Economics (Money)-
There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.
-Government (Production of Commons)-
It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).
THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL
Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.
So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.
He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).
Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.
But this is logically and empirically false.
People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;
People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.
Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.
Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).
What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.
So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.
And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.
THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS
We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.
The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.
The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.
The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine.
Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle).
The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.
Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.
-Deflation vs Conflation-
Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)
While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).
Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.
Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.
This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).
So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.
Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.
CLOSING
So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*
—-
NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-shortcomings-of-the-Austrian-School-of-Economics’-understanding-of-economics

June 12, 2017
What Are The Shortcomings Of The Austrian School Of Economics’ Understanding Of Economics?

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS?
I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.
THE SHORT VERSION
If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.
If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.
If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.
But let’s go into some detail.
THE SCHOOLS
The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.
The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’.
So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.
Austrian (Virginia):
The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)
Freshwater (Chicago):
The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)
Saltwater (New York):
The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)
This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.
At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.
UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS
-Economics (Money)-
There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.
-Government (Production of Commons)-
It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).
THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL
Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.
So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.
He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).
Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.
But this is logically and empirically false.
People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;
People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.
Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.
Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).
What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.
So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.
And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.
THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS
We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.
The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.
The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.
The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine.
Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle).
The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.
Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.
-Deflation vs Conflation-
Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)
While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).
Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.
Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.
This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).
So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.
Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.
CLOSING
So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*
—-
NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-shortcomings-of-the-Austrian-School-of-Economics’-understanding-of-economics

June 12, 2017