Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Only Means Of Eliminating The State And Constructing Liberty

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    [T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:
    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    [F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    [A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Only Means Of Eliminating The State And Constructing Liberty

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    [T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:
    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    [F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    [A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • EVIL IS NOT STUPID (movies) The Butcher (2014) is a pretty good innovation on Se

    EVIL IS NOT STUPID

    (movies)

    The Butcher (2014) is a pretty good innovation on Seven. Pretty impressed. Hadn’t seen it. Just got it over here where the only way to see English movies is by downloading them.

    I had this discussion with Steven J. Woron back in the early 80’s, I think, when he was working on a script. And of course, I hadn’t grown up in comic-culture so I didn’t understand Steve’s mythos. I grew up in a world where evil was a real thing I had to deal with: stronger, smarter, faster and more powerful in every respect.

    And as I read it I kept saying to myself that “evil isn’t stupid and brutal”. Just the opposite. Any evil to be feared is cunning. And you can see that in the economic failure of scripts that don’t follow that, and the overwhelming success of scripts where evil humiliates us with its genius. The great villains are not stupid, they are brilliant.

    I always think it is a childish disservice, and completely counter to the western mythological tradition, to position villains as impulsive brutes with childlike self interest. I can’t really ever enjoy pop villains brought to screen for this reason. They are paper maché masks worn by bunny rabbits, at a victorian costume party.

    The western aristocratic tradition is quite simple: be wary of hubris, for there are gods. They are evil. And that are cunning.

    There is evil in the world and it is not defeated by deus ex machina. It is not defeated my supermen. It is defeated by the swallowing of terror by men of courage; the use of their wit; and the bearing of great costs, at great personal risk, to defeat it, for the common good.

    The devil is not obvious. There is more evil in as mundane a criminal as Nancy Pelosi than in all the demons of literature. There is more brutality in a Barak Obama’s creation of a power vacuum that can only be filled by world war. There is more immorality in a Google algorithm to suppress dissent than in the arguments of any violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 08:50:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE (north sea libertarian liberty) The only

    THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    The only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:

    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.

    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.

    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.

    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.

    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.

    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.

    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    Fukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    As advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.

    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.

    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.

    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).

    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.

    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.

    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law.

    …7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    www.propertarianism.com

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 06:31:00 UTC

  • NO HE DIDN”T LIE. NOT HIS CHARACTER. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? This frustrates

    NO HE DIDN”T LIE. NOT HIS CHARACTER. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TELL US?

    This frustrates the heck out of me. I know these people. There is no way these people lied. They believed it, just as surely as you believe what you know very little about but are threatened by, and assume you understand. Based upon Iraqi propaganda meant to intimidate the Iranians, based upon fragmentary information, based upon limited on-the-ground intel, and self-interested informants, both historical evidence, rational motives, limited intel, and informants agreed. These are normal conservatives, with high sensitivity to threats, interpreting information within their own system of cognitive biases. They are moral men who were tragically mistaken, and worse, misunderstood the culture they were dealing with: lying, deception, fraud, boisterous nonsensical empty words of a competing tribal people. Caught with a catastrophic error they justified it to themselves and us. What we have since learned is that much of the world is not ready for democracy, and in fact, democracy as we know it, may be a temporary luxury unique to western people in periods of extraordinary prosperity that occur only once every millennium.

    Does Nancy Pelosi believe her daily lies? I suspect she does in her own twisted way. Does Barak Obama understand that in his effort to reverse US interference in the world, that he is creating the power vacuum that world wars and falls of civilisations are caused by? I think not. We are all fools, constantly the subject of the pretense of knowledge, the pretense of understanding, fitfully trying to justify our priors.

    Of course people had to lie if they made such a ridiculous mistake. But then, everyone who calls them a liar makes the same mistake: propositions made in ignorance in light of hindsight.

    Bush may have been many things, but dishonesty is not part of his character. He believes with full and certain faith that history will vindicate him. I suspect he errs. He errs in that there was any possible solution except punishment. Correction and modernization were beyond our abilities, because they were beyond Muslim capabilities.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 07:19:00 UTC

  • DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER. I’d like to posit a broader gene

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/04/things-i-probably-will-have-time-to-say-rethinking-macro-policy-iii-conference-washington-dc-april-15-16.htmlA DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER.

    I’d like to posit a broader generalization that not only keeps up with current events but looks past them.

    Political behavior since the beginning of this correction – particularly the expression of moral intuition as austerity – is evidence that all human organizations, at all scales, act to advance their interests, and those interests remain heterogeneous and irreconcilable. The optimum economic performance in any political order is determined by the homogeneity of their interests – not the maximum velocity under the assumption of common interests. As such, we must construct any science of economics – the study of cooperation that is predictive, within those constraints – or it is ideology: meaning persuasive, not science: meaning descriptive.

    I believe we could argue that – as we did in 1913 – we have reached the maximum tolerable homogeneity in both the country, and the world. And with that maximum tolerable homogeneity, the limit of the generalization of the principles of the 1930’s. And the limit of the origins of those principles in the generalization of the Anglo, German and Jewish enlightenment visions of man, in which each group attempted to advance its group strategy as a universal good. All theories fail at some scale, but we never know in advance, that limit. All those theories persist today unmodified and irreconcilable. And to their visions of the future we have now added the economic, political, demographic and military force of other civilizations once again. We call this effect ‘globalization’. Which is in itself the implication of homogenous universal interest among those who cooperate.

    Yet, man cooperates because it is a more beneficial means of competition, not a de-facto good. But in the end, within and without, intra and inter, we compete. Cooperation is only as sustainable as it is beneficial. Its benefit has limits, and those limits are political.

    Without the abandonment of the myth of a monopoly of interests, and the introduction of polycentric morality, and political reality, into economics, we will remain unable to forecast, or even describe events.

    But that said, Braid is right: without reforming the financial system we will not stop the unnecessary privatization of the commons endemic to the distribution of liquidity through an unnecessary distributor.

    So I think the necessary reformation of our thought is the one in which we bypass the financial system, instead of one in which we attempt to improve it. I think the discourse then becomes one of fiscal policy and not one of monetary policy. I think we then avoid the monopoly of interests assumed in monetary policy, and conduct exchanges between the interests of heterogeneous classes, rather than manipulate those classes in an attempt to conquer the middle and upper by the lower. And that world is likely the only one that can marginally improve on the universalist model of the 20th century, which is an institutional expression of the anglo enlightenment, and our friends Smith and Burke.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 23:06:00 UTC

  • APOLOGISTS The truth of any religion is the actions produced by its adherents. A

    APOLOGISTS

    The truth of any religion is the actions produced by its adherents. A religion is not what you believe it is, it is what we observe the results of its practice are. I know this infuriates Neo-Puritans, Jews, Muslims and Hindus if not Buddhists and Catholics, but the net result of it is that your religion produces outcomes, and those outcomes if different from outcomes in other religions, determines the properties of your religion. Not what you believe, not what you practice, not what you profess, not what you study, not what you teach – but what people do with belief, practice, profession, study, teaching.

    We have too much knowledge now that language, myth, narrative. ritual and belief are illusions that produce externalities. If you are poor, your culture and your religion, and that which you cherish, as well as the family you cherish, are responsible.

    I don’t have any respect for devoted atheism. The mythic is too important a producer of outcomes. Our ancient myths, from the greek to the germanic, to the Arthurian to the American revolution, to the Burkeian, to the science fiction of the golden age are more important than our religious, and rationalist traditions.

    The important reformations were Smiths (economics), and Darwin’s(our self image). . And the Marxist and syndicalist left, Jewish separatist, and neo puritan atheists, as well as the anti-Darwinian religious have attempted to suppress these narratives in an attempt to preserve authoritarianism: to preserve group bonds.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:42:00 UTC

  • PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH TOPIC: Arbitrary

    PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH

    TOPIC: Arbitrary precision (general, generalizable rules), and the cost of increases in precision versus the utility of increases in precision.

    I have been involved in personality testing since 1981, and have researched the work back into the 1950’s, and IQ back into the first world war, and I stand by the Meyers Briggs as the least precise, yet most useful tool precisely because it is the least precise.

    When I worked with Predictive Index, I had to carry around something on the order of fifty index cards listing each personality type. In our company all management had to take the training. Then we had to try to figure out everyone’s personality in the company. The President would then tell us if we had it right or not, given the individual’s results.

    Even in that test I would vary greatly on introversion/extroversion, but not at all on dominance, patience, or fear of blame. And knowing that variation was very interesting, because it was true – I vary a lot.

    The Minnesota Multiphasic is useful, despite its framing, largely because it is exceptional at lie detection. But it’s like 600 questions or so. And it’s very negative. It forces you to obsess on the negative.

    The Big 5 is part of the fucked-up, pseudoscientific drivel of Freudian psychology – an elaborate system of framing in order to justify authoritarianism and demonize non-conformity to authoritarian (Jewish) ideology. This suits the kind of people who pursue psychology – to find a source of dominance.

    If we constructed a test with Nietzschean framing, and with as many questions, and as much lie detection, we would find a different and more useful LIBERTARIAN rather than authoritarian distribution of results.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to eliminate all this nonsense by framing all analysis as measures of means of acquisition, and the (a) production or non-production, and (b) truth or deceit we use to acquire. A Propertarian analysis would not lead to authoritarian framing, but instead, to moral framing: how suitable an individual is for cooperation.

    Propertarianism is the replacement for psychology. We can test that because all moral propositions are decidable.

    But Propertarianism is pretty analytically challenging to learn.

    Conversely, for most people, and for forecasting performance in the work place, MBTI can be constructed from as few as 30 questions, and as many as 100. And it’s all positive. It frames the questions as how you interact with others in public.

    Now, if I want to measure 5 attributes, and I ask 100 questions on each, with `100 additional lie detectors (20% more questions for the purpose of lie detection) I am going to get pretty accurate results if carefully administered.

    If I want to measure 4 attributes, and ask only 30 questions, with no lie detection, then I am going to get a pretty noisy set of answers. But if I ask 30 questions, then I attempt to frame everyone (practice it) that I interact with, then I will be soon able to develop a similar framing for the ascertainment of the motivations and means of cooperating with others in the workplace – if not in life.

    Now, we have really good data that MBTI is a great predictor of relationship compatibility. And we have really good data that shows that people can learn and use it, without a great deal of sophistication. And it’s cheap to administer. And over time you will understand yourself and others within the supplied frame.

    So, what I tend to tell people, is that it is the best extant tool.

    I would like to develop a similar questionnaire for Propertarianism. Because in Propertarianism we test what we know are the causal properties of human behavioral differences. And that would be the MOST scientific data set that I think humans could yet develop.

    But I also think it is for the purpose of TRUTH and I think MBTI is for the purpose of UTILITY, and while truth is useful, rules of thumb are just as useful if the PRECISION afforded by truth is at the expense of practical utility. In other words, we still use Newtonian mechanics in most of life, and very few of us more precise calculations. Because more precision isn’t useful. And its a lot more work.

    What this little comment has done, is convinced me that I need to work with some people to produce a Propertarian values test. Which is pretty easy really. But in Oversing, we will use a jungian analysis, for the simple reason that PEOPLE CAN USE IT TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 06:18:00 UTC

  • DENIALISM HAS NO FUTURE IN ECONOMICS (useful arguments)(libertarians should read

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/04/u-s-taxes-low-compared-with-other-developed-economiesMORAL DENIALISM HAS NO FUTURE IN ECONOMICS

    (useful arguments)(libertarians should read) (conservatives should read)(reactionaries should read)

    BARRY:

    We have high tax efficiency (people pay), high productivity (we work more), higher employment (more of us work, and work longer), vastly more entrepreneurship, risk taking, and innovation, and much, much higher consumption. (We also have counter-productive higher corporate taxation.)

    The left’s argument is that under a democratic government, we can tax – without equilibrating effect – a divided, heterogeneous American domestic empire, via the same means as we do small, homogenous European extended-tribal nation-states that are not responsible for policing the world system of finance and trade, nor of their seas, borders, or neighbors. It is one thing to redistribute to kin, another to redistribute to free riders, and another to redistribute to one’s kin’s competitors

    So what you mean, if stated truthfully (meaning: fully informed), is that we should exchange efficiency, productivity, employment and consumption for the production of additional redistributive commons of unequal desirability, against the wishes of the producers. Yet this would only increase the divisiveness of the heterogeneous population.

    It is true that through immigration, the left, with the support of the academy, has perpetuated a conquest of the European people’s in exchange for income and status signals. And that via this conquest, that it will shortly be possible to engage in further appropriation, and greater dependence upon redistribution, providing fewer incentives to pay, to produce, to employ and to consume.

    But it is not yet certain whether the heterogeneous polity will come to dissolution over it or not. And as we have seen from the success of the austerity movement, people will pay high personal costs to punish free riders. Yet, ignoring human instinctual morality that is necessary for the evolution of cooperation, mainstream economists – and particularly left-leaning mainstream economists – assume that democratic electorates will tolerate inter-cultural redistribution from high productivity to low productivity peoples without invoking moral demand for altruistic punishment.

    Austerity is a normal, irrepressible result of the instinctual and evolutionarily necessary requirement to suppress free-riding.

    It is anti-empirical (unscientific) to suggest (and possibly genocidal to suggest) that we should not, or under democracy that man will not, engage in the punishment of free riders.

    Just how it is. That’s the science. Or has economics evolved from anti-operational, into a full-fledged anti-empirical, anti-rational religion?

    Your opponents succeed politically because of moral intuition, even if they lack a rhetorical language to articulate those intuitions. Some of us are working on giving them that language. We just hope it is not too late to end yet another pseudoscience as we are systematically ending the rest of the progressives pseudosciences.

    Moral denialism has no future.

    Cheers 🙂

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 04:15:00 UTC

  • COLLEGE CERTIFIED, THEN FILTERED, NOW IT DOESN’T EVEN DO THAT And you want to te

    COLLEGE CERTIFIED, THEN FILTERED, NOW IT DOESN’T EVEN DO THAT

    And you want to tell me that every individual in the academy isn’t influenced by (top academics) or driven by (the remaining academics and the bureaucracy) malincenitves?

    As far as I can tell, a middle class (moral) upbringing, and your work ethic, determine your productivity in the workplace.

    The best universities largely just filter. The remainder are largely diploma mills. And we have now lost the generations that sought to convey 5000 years of western intellectual and cultural development in truth-telling.

    GOOGLE DATA

    –“Google is widely viewed as a bellwether of the new economy. It is noteworthy, then, that Google has found that academic success has little correlation with being productive in the workplace. Lazlo Bock, Senior Vice President of People Operations at Google, made the following comments in an interview published by the New York Times in June 2013:

    -One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.s (grade point averages) are worthless as criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.s and test scores, but we don’t anymore. We found that they don’t predict anything. What’s interesting is the proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time as well. So we have teams where you have 14 percent of the team made up of people who’ve never gone to college.-

    Signaling an ability to grind through four or five years of institutional coursework is no longer enough; the signaling needed to indicate an ability to create value must be much richer in information density and more persuasive than a factory model diploma.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 03:03:00 UTC