Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Non-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertaria

    Non-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertarianism. With descriptive definitions rather than vague obscurantist “principles” the philosophical vacuousness of the movement is readily exposed.

    The reason these debates still occur, and the reason this article is just one of thousands of similar pretentions is the fact that the NAP is untestable. And as I have argued, it is untestable for the same reason that dialectical materialism is untestable: to allow for individual interpretation of scope of that which can be aggressed upon. And therefore, via suggestion, creates a false consensus on the complete sentence where there is none. Nearly all libertarian differences are reducible to differences in the definition of property that can be aggressed upon: physical, externality, normative, institutional, territorial.

    The NAP sounds meaningful to many but because as an incomplete sentence, it leaves the object of aggression substitutable by each individual. AS SUCH NAP IS MORALLY RELATIVE since each person interprets the scope to which aggression must be limited differently.

    Yet, to form a voluntary polity, one cannot posses moral relativity. The problem with any such polity is (a) whether it competes as a rational choice of membership versus competing polities (especially given high transaction costs in anarchy) and (b) whether it is possible to sustain competition for power from within such a polity, and (c) whether such a polity would be tolerated by neighboring polities.

    The NAP is just another bit of verbal deception like dialectical materialism or the labor theory of value. It’s another bit of pseudoscientific nonsense. one does not determine that which is “right” – others do. One determines what is right by whether or not others retaliate against you for it.

    Walter Bock and Murray Rothbard’s ancestors practiced the NAP in the wildlands and ghettos of Eastern Europe, and were almost always exterminated or outcast for it. And it is probably the reason why the polity was never able to functionally produce the commons that were necessary for the defense of and holding of territory.

    The jewish method of argument originating in their scriptures is indirection, suggestion, and externality. The entire methodology of monotheistic abrahamic religion is deception by suggestion using half truths, loading, overloading and repetition. (Gossiping). The methods of marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, rothbard are all examples of this kind of deceit. They give us half truths consisting of comforting lies, that we desperately wish to believe, and through heaping of undue praise, the parchment, pulpit, book, magazine, newspaper, radio, television, play and movie they distribute a desirable falsehood in order to obscure the unpleasant truth. Lies are much cheaper than truths and more desirable. So in every era that new means of distributing lies at a discount was made possible by technology, thy have created new methods of lying and distributed them vociferously.

    The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which prohibits retaliation, because it is the need for costly retaliation that causes demand for the authoritarian state to suppress retaliation. The only cure is to provide an institutional means for resolving any and all cases of retaliation, so that there is no existentially possible demand for the state that is not in and of itself a demand for parasitism.

    Period. End of story. Individual moral choice is a lie. Morality is empirically determined by the value of cooperation and the cost of retaliation.

    But it is a cognitive bias, probably born of developmental defect that causes people to become attracted to libertarianism in order to claim to determine morality on their own, of their own choice, rather than out of necessity. And why? Because as outcasts the desire to escape payment for normative and physical commons is a rational reaction to obtaining less value from the commons than one is required to pay in costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-16 11:27:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Is There White Trash?

    [W]HY IS THERE WHITE TRASH?

    —Curt: Can you explain the whole white trash phenomenon? How can a country so wealthy and full of opportunities have white trash? I anticipate that your answer is likely to be “it’s all IQ” or something along these lines, but aren’t there opportunities for dumb people as well?—-

    “All happy families are the same. All unhappy families are different”
    “All domesticate-able animals are the same. All un-domesticate-able animals are different”
    “All ‘good’ people are the same, all ‘bad’ people are different”

    IQ is correlative, but insufficient explanation for cause. But personality is sufficient.

    If we take all these variables:

    Visualization challenged vs Visualization/spatial intelligence
    Communication challenged vs Verbal intelligence
    autistic vs solipsistic
    introversion vs extroversion

    constancy vs novelty
    disciplined vs undisciplined
    secure/calm vs nervous/sensitive

    compassionate/cooperative vs suspicious/antagonistic
    Impulsivity vs non-impulsivity
    submissive vs aggressive

    With just these variables, we humans have the ability to construct cooperative, disciplined and satisfied minds, or aggressive, undisciplined and unsatisfied minds.

    The reason people in the bottom classes are generally difficult to employ MIGHT be intelligence, but all research I have read of late (when we see pseudoscience slowly receding in social science) is pretty consistent in stating that the unemployable people are just ‘bad personalities’. Much of the time it is that they constantly get negative feedback for their behaviors, and this effectively drives all of us into frustration.

    White trash is a minority in western civilization but in many cultures it’s the majority. Our culture systematically eliminated these people over many centuries. So they are smaller in number, but now rapidly breeding.

    It’s not all IQ. It is just that IQ and ‘good’ behaviors very often increase accordingly. Or that IQ allows us to COMPENSATE for our bad behaviors while lack of it forces us to give into those bad behaviors.

    INFORMATION
    I use the information model to study human behavior. And so I focus on the fact that all of these behaviors are constructed by the ability to organize and process information that gives us hormonal (chemical) rewards. Broken people have less ability to gain psychic rewards. Healthy people have more opportunity to gain psychic rewards.

    Each of us has a frustration budget.
    People at the bottom burn through that budget pretty frequently.
    you can have a dumb person with all good traits, and a smart person with all bad traits. It just isn’t that common.

  • The Next Grand Narrative of Man May Be The Long Sought Social Science

    [T]he Next Grand Narrative?

    1) The evolution of all disciplines has been away from myth to reason to calculation: a set of operations. (Webber). 

    2) I think that the output narrative produced by this age will look far more like social science than philosophy.

    3) I think that just as previous revolutions in the the sciences have produced useful but less fulfilling visions of the universe, that this revolution in human understanding will be the long sought after social science, and that it will be equally useful but unsatisfying.

    4) I think the only reason postmodernism succeeded – like pseudosciences that birthed it: Boaz(anthropology), Freud(psychology), Marx(economics and sociology), Cantor(mathematics), Keynes (mathematical economics), and the Frankfurt School (Use of Falsehood and Strawman) – was that the thinkers of the early 20th century failed to solve the problem of calculations (Operations) in social science: Brouwer (math), Bridgman(Physics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), Popper (philosophy). In each field, someone understood at least vaguely that the solution was in a single direction, but they could not produce a science – social science – from it.

    5) I think there are two reasons that they failed: a) the competition from pseudosciences was preferred by all, particularly, the academy that sought to replace the moral authority of the churches. b) the authors themselves were not able to make the same disassociation from the framing of moral intuition that was Einstein in in s framing of gravity. In fact, there is a moral sensibility to every thinker’s arguments. So the cause of their arguments (a sense of immorality to the pseudosciences) was too influenced by moral intuitions of their own cultures.

    6) I am fairly sure I know the basic structure of this science, and I am fairly sure that it is useful, true, and as usual: unsatisfying.

  • The Next Grand Narrative of Man May Be The Long Sought Social Science

    [T]he Next Grand Narrative?

    1) The evolution of all disciplines has been away from myth to reason to calculation: a set of operations. (Webber). 

    2) I think that the output narrative produced by this age will look far more like social science than philosophy.

    3) I think that just as previous revolutions in the the sciences have produced useful but less fulfilling visions of the universe, that this revolution in human understanding will be the long sought after social science, and that it will be equally useful but unsatisfying.

    4) I think the only reason postmodernism succeeded – like pseudosciences that birthed it: Boaz(anthropology), Freud(psychology), Marx(economics and sociology), Cantor(mathematics), Keynes (mathematical economics), and the Frankfurt School (Use of Falsehood and Strawman) – was that the thinkers of the early 20th century failed to solve the problem of calculations (Operations) in social science: Brouwer (math), Bridgman(Physics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), Popper (philosophy). In each field, someone understood at least vaguely that the solution was in a single direction, but they could not produce a science – social science – from it.

    5) I think there are two reasons that they failed: a) the competition from pseudosciences was preferred by all, particularly, the academy that sought to replace the moral authority of the churches. b) the authors themselves were not able to make the same disassociation from the framing of moral intuition that was Einstein in in s framing of gravity. In fact, there is a moral sensibility to every thinker’s arguments. So the cause of their arguments (a sense of immorality to the pseudosciences) was too influenced by moral intuitions of their own cultures.

    6) I am fairly sure I know the basic structure of this science, and I am fairly sure that it is useful, true, and as usual: unsatisfying.

  • ( Notice how Trump is honest about his strategy. He uses the media against itsel

    ( Notice how Trump is honest about his strategy. He uses the media against itself. He baits them like he baits the financial sector when building his projects: by appealing to their greed, then turning it on them later in the development cycle.

    He disempowers the state-media conspiracy of common interest: selling faith in an impossible utopia to willing consumers and voters in exchange for advertising revenue for media and votes that allow funding of the special interests and ideologues that get politicians into office.

    He uses their greed by selling the opposite message and invoking moral outrage, and they play host to his message and give him free distribution in an effort to stop him. They cannot refuse the short term revenue or political attention even though in the long term he is undermining their influence and demonstrating their duplicity.

    The art of it is fascinating to watch. And the media and the state are committing suicide by showering him with attention in attempts to stop him from doing exactly what his voters want: disempowering the state-media-academy alliance, that we in the #NewRight call ‘The Cathedral’. The replacement of the military industrial complex with the state, academy media complex. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-12 12:09:00 UTC

  • ON THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ACADEMY’S SPECIALIZATION I think Group Evolutionary Stra

    ON THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ACADEMY’S SPECIALIZATION

    I think Group Evolutionary Strategy is an empirical science.

    I think Political Orders (informal and formal institutions) evolve to facilitate group evolutionary strategies.

    I think all groups demonstrate a individual productivity, the production of reproduction (families), the production of goods and services, the production of commons, and the production of group evolutionary strategy in competition against other groups.

    I think formal (institutional) economics studies one form of the three methods of influence: invention, investment, production distribution, trade, and consumption. And that this discipline studies largely the production of commons.

    I think economics does not study the two other (necessary) methods of organizing human behavior: threat/force/law, and threat/exclusion/religion-myth-narrative-ideology. The three threats of deprivation are threat of harm, threat of loss of consumption, threat of loss of cooperation.

    I think studying any set of formal or inform institutions in isolation leads to selection bias, confirmation bias.

    I think economics, like democratic secular humanism, like individualism over familialism, like consumption over group competitiveness is providing a destructive influence on western civilization and is more responsible for the decline in the institutions of western civilization than feminism, more than socialism, and is second only to mass immigration in the damage done.

    One can construct a pseudoscience by failing to follow the scientific method, yet claiming that one does. However, one can also construct a pseudoscience by not understanding the scientific method (laundering imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit) and failing to apply ALL its methods of preventing error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit.

    The scientific method requires we test for:

    categorical consistency, logical consistency, empirical consistency, existential possibility (operationalism), full accounting, parsimony and limits, and in human affairs, morality: fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer under which cooperation is rational and non parasitic.

    The scientific method, much like the broken window fallacy, requires full accounting as a defense against demonstrating confirmation bias by the use of selection bias.

    And therefore by not accounting for the changes in all forms of capital, including genetic, normative, familial, institutional, informational, economics simplifies the craft, and avoids full accounting, justifies consumption, and encourages the rapid destruction of genetic, normative, familial, institutional, and informational capital.

    If a man ever says “but in economics we only study …” you have just seen a man engage in pseudoscience, just as much as a priest or mystic says “i only study the words of…” There is no difference.

    Ergo I think that economics is a study of a subset of cooperation under the (false, unscientific, pseudoscientific) assumption that consumption is a ‘good’ rather than group competitiveness is a good. And I think economics (including those advocating liberty) has been complicity in the destruction of western group evolutionary strategy.

    Why? I think coming to terms (as I have) with western group evolutionary strategy confirms the empirical basis of western civilization, but I also think that coming to terms with western group evolutionary strategy eliminates our ability to engage in that most (despicable) form of fraud: unearned virtue-signaling, which the academy and state so depend upon for mass support.

    The west succeeded in developing faster than all other groups by upward redistribution of reproduction and the constant and relentless domestication of the underclasses through hanging, war, manorialism, and starvation.

    The entry of women into the workforce and into the franchise reversed this strategy.

    That is social science: group evolutionary strategy. Everything else is pseudoscience. And must be.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-11 02:31:00 UTC

  • Because specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a dis

    Because specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft.

    Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior.

    The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason.

    While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists.

    In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 04:36:00 UTC

  • The Costs of The Seen vs The Unseen

    [T]HE COST OF THE SEEN VS THE UNSEEN (what is the cost of lying) What is the cost of requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons? That is a silly question. What is the cost of not requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons?

    What is the cost of libel, slander, rallying, shaming, loading, overloading, suggestion? What is the cost of islam, judaism, christianity, marxism, feminism, postmodernism? What is the cost of lies? The cost is the difference between the world where people speak the truth and the world where people lie and vector lies.

  • The Costs of The Seen vs The Unseen

    [T]HE COST OF THE SEEN VS THE UNSEEN (what is the cost of lying) What is the cost of requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons? That is a silly question. What is the cost of not requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons?

    What is the cost of libel, slander, rallying, shaming, loading, overloading, suggestion? What is the cost of islam, judaism, christianity, marxism, feminism, postmodernism? What is the cost of lies? The cost is the difference between the world where people speak the truth and the world where people lie and vector lies.

  • So why do you still consider yourself a libertarian— Because I place liberty a

    —So why do you still consider yourself a libertarian—

    Because I place liberty above all other values.

    I am a libertarian like my ancestors. And in that pursuit of liberty I construct no obscurantist methods by which to conduct free riding.

    Rothbard was objectively, like Block, a libertine: observing personal property but not norms, commons or defense.

    Since libertinism cannot produce liberty it is merely an excuse for separatism – free riding on commons produced by others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 15:22:00 UTC