Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • (Love of Architecture: If we added the single constitutional requirement that al

    (Love of Architecture: If we added the single constitutional requirement that all public buildings, all public infrastructure, must be constructed of man-portable, hand-laid materials, then we could both absorb vast amounts of low skilled labor, and return to the production of monumental artworks that last for generations. And we could escape the era of disposable panel-products constructed with machines, that insult us with their very presence. Architecture is our monument: it demonstrates that we improve the land we occupy. It marks the land as ours. It demonstrates our love for it – and for each other. Art evolved as we understand it, to decorate our architectural monuments, public demonstrating our love of man, for what man is capable of with his hands, and such art can only be constructed within arts that were themselves constructed by the hand of man. The devolution of art was both a marxist intention – to destroy our heroic aristocratic traditions, and the product of post-war panel products and industrialization of architecture: industrialization of our monuments. Industrialization of our arts. But it is easily reversible. And no man who builds a monument to his people with his hands, will tolerate insult to the his efforts, the monument, of the sentiment that he contributed to, and constructed, with is own hands. We own what we invest in. And we will not defend that which we do not own. )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-18 07:35:00 UTC

  • Rule of Law Is Sacred to Western Man

    –“our prophet is sacred to us”– [R]ule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life. As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics. The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts. Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.

  • Rule of Law Is Sacred to Western Man

    –“our prophet is sacred to us”– [R]ule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life. As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics. The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts. Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.

  • BAFFLED BY PROPERTARIANISM? STUCK ON SCARITY? It’s OK, I understand if you are b

    BAFFLED BY PROPERTARIANISM? STUCK ON SCARITY?

    It’s OK, I understand if you are baffled. it happens. If this wasn’t hard it wouldn’t have stumped Hoppe. He’s no dummy. I just got lucky. He learned under justification, rationalism and marxism, and I learned under criticism, science, and computabilty. It is only logical that he would invent a justificationary, rationalist, and cosmopolitan argument, and that I would be puzzled by it, and restate it as a critical, scientific, and operational method. It’s just mental modeling. He was from an earlier generation that wasn’t aware of these problems. Even my work is only the result of his creating a ‘problem’ that I could understand was false. And it’s just deterministic that someone would finally understand Mises’ error, and combined Mises in economics, Brouwer in physics, and Bridgman in mathematics, with the failure 20th century analytic philosophy, as mere tautology – a problem of linguistic operations.

    So, I am not ignoring the distinction between physically scarce and physically non-scarce goods. I am stating that with this argument, Hoppe wants to attribute causality to that distinction in order to justify his priors. In other words, he is unknowingly (I assume), constructing a straw man argument to justify priors, rather than determining causality. This is a common philosophical error.

    Instead, I’m saying that your argument is false because it is impossible. It is impossible because your conclusion that we face a problem of scarcity, is irrelevant, since scarcity is only perceivable, experienceable, and therefore knowable by price (cost). it is operationally impossible for humans to have developed concepts of scarcity, and it is impossible for us to act because of scarcity. What we act upon, and what we know, is what we measure: cost. Our measurements exist. Our knowledge originates in measurements. Our subjective value of different choices is determined by those measurements.

    So what I think everyone on the libertine side is missing, is that Hoppe is assuming a conclusion that justifies what he claims to deduce from it. Rather than using praxeological (existentially possible), internally consistent, externally correspondent, and falsified criticisms.

    SCARCITY VS COST

    Scarcity is a universal, unknowable, marginal indifference. It is praxeologicaly non-existent. I cannot know and act on it. Cost is particular, knowable, and decidable because of marginal differences. It is praxeologicaly existential. I can know and act on it.

    Scarcity is important between states, that need not reduce local transaction costs, but which must avoid conflict despite differences in local rules.

    Morality is important between individuals, because they must reduce transaction costs sufficiently to engage in production in a division of knowledge and labor.

    Polities must form laws (rules) of cooperation, that mix the necessary rules of morality (prohibition on free riding), with the rules necessary for the production of commons, with the utilitarian allocation of privileges (norms) that assist in either parasitism or the organization of production or both.

    Rothbard, as a cosmopolitan, was trying to justify separatism. Not describe necessary properties of cooperation, nor the necessary properties of rule of law, under which a group of people can cooperate without allocation of discretion to individuals with authority.

    Not sure why this isn’t terribly obvious. But then I have been working on the problem a very long time.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-17 11:25:00 UTC

  • You Are Welcome To Your Privilege


    —“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman

    —“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle

    —“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle

    —“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle

  • You Are Welcome To Your Privilege


    —“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman

    —“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle

    —“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle

    —“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle

  • Sorry That My Work On Truth Isn’t All That Interesting To You. 🙂

    (the importance of the work)

    [I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.

    But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.

    The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.

    A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).

    All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.

    I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.

    But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.

    And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.

    ***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***

    So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    —–
    [1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).

  • Sorry That My Work On Truth Isn’t All That Interesting To You. 🙂

    (the importance of the work)

    [I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.

    But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.

    The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.

    A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).

    All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.

    I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.

    But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.

    And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.

    ***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***

    So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    —–
    [1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).

  • I’M SORRY THAT MY INQUIRY INTO TRUTH ISN’T THAT INTERESTING. 🙂 (the importance

    I’M SORRY THAT MY INQUIRY INTO TRUTH ISN’T THAT INTERESTING. 🙂

    (the importance of the work)

    I realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.

    But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.

    The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.

    A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).

    All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.

    I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.

    But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.

    And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.

    ***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***

    So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Lviv Ukraine

    —–

    [1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-16 04:09:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW IS SACRED TO WESTERN MAN –“our prophet is sacred to us”– Rule of l

    RULE OF LAW IS SACRED TO WESTERN MAN

    –“our prophet is sacred to us”–

    Rule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not, a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth, rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from mans mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life.

    As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics.

    The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts.

    Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-12 05:13:00 UTC