Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT Science as we understand it is an attempt to

    THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech.

    Science as we understand it does not ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

    Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

    Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

    Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy en toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

    Law can now be scientifically constructed.

    Truth, science, law, morality are now identical.

    All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 02:56:00 UTC

  • You see men in America who worry about their social status. You see the very sam

    You see men in America who worry about their social status. You see the very same men here in Ukraine worry about finding work to feed their families. You see men check out of society in the states to watch sports and play video games. You see men check out of society to drink and watch sports here because they have no alternative.

    The only difference between Canada and Ukraine is the influence of the major power next door. The only thing preventing a prosperous Ukraine is 20K lawyers and judges imported, and the conduct of law in english. And the ostracization of all Russian sympathizers from all walks of life. You think that’s a crazy idea: it’s freaking genius.

    I hate seeing willing men whose lives go wasted.

    I don’t care about whose race they belong to by the way.

    I just care more about my tribe first, as all aristocracy should.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 07:22:00 UTC

  • THE GENETIC ADAPTATION IN FAVOR OF LYING I am wired for correspondence. It isn’t

    THE GENETIC ADAPTATION IN FAVOR OF LYING

    I am wired for correspondence. It isn’t a skill. It’s wiring. So much so that I cant stop trying to solve an unsolved problem if I want to. But I can’t follow lateral thinking very often, and even humor is difficult to understand – because much of humor requires lateral thinking as a vent for the unsolvable or undesirable problems. And it is increasingly clear that westerners have adapted, and are now wired, to demonstrate pathological altruism. (Myself unfortunately included.)

    But it has helped me understand that people can be just as easily wired for lying. That it is not so much a skill but an ability. The ability to lie even unintentionally. The genetic preference to lie. Lying as adaptation. As evolutionary strategy. That sociopathic predation may be a beneficial adaptation, just as sexual impulsivity in certain areas of the lower classes is a beneficial adaptation.

    That some people are naturally intuitive of your incentives such that it does not require effort to attempt to exploit opportunities for parasitism, the same way that it does not require westerners to exert effort at identifying opportunities for altruism.

    Some people, some TRIBES are genetically wired for parasitism – as an adaptation.

    Without laws that protect against parasitism we have no organized means of Training, Suppressing the behavior in, or ostracizing, those who have this trait.

    As I have shown in Propertarianism, as we increase trust by constructing property rights that increasingly prohibit various forms of predation, free riding and parasitism, we must constantly increase the scope of property rights so that the law assists us in suppressing ever expanding talents at predation, free riding and parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 07:09:00 UTC

  • WE CAN RESTORE TRUTH, REASON, AND THE CIVIC SOCIETY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT U

    WE CAN RESTORE TRUTH, REASON, AND THE CIVIC SOCIETY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

    It took from 1780 to 1980 for the Germans, Jews and Americans to destroy reason. It has taken us from 1980 to the present to incrementally attempt to reconstruct it. And if I am successful, and at some point, rule of law, as a common (organic, self-organizing) law, can be based upon Propertarian logic, then it will no longer be possible to commit such an egregious crime against humanity. Property en toto, protected by a prohibition on transfers not constituting productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality consisting in the same conditions, and under universal standing, is sufficient to eliminate the need for regulatory governance and all legislation; and reduces the need for government to the production of commons that cannot be produced in the market without insurance against privatization of such commons, socialization of losses into those commons, or free ridging upon the contributions of others who constructed the commons.

    We can reconstruct truth, truthfulness, testimony, and the civic society. Self organizing organically evolutionary law, property en toto under propertarian ethical constraints, and universal standing are enough.

    If a few men are willing to use organized violence to force the implementation of such rule of law over the continued practice of systemic deception, due to the systemic attack on reason, science, and truth telling, by the most ambitious attempt conspiracy of liars in human history outside of the monotheists.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 05:21:00 UTC

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 6) RATIONALISTS JUST HAVE IT BACKWARDS – JUSTIFICATION RAT

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 6)

    RATIONALISTS JUST HAVE IT BACKWARDS – JUSTIFICATION RATHER THAN CRITICISM.

    “The Silver Rule Wins over The Golden Rule Too – for the same reason.”

    Macro economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible even if they are explainable. As such economics is no different from any other constructed upon laws : theories of arbitrary precision open to constant reformation. For economic theories to be testified as true, we must demonstrate that they are open to construction by sympathetic tests.

    As such, just as the golden rule is backwards, and the silver rule is correct, Mises just has praxeology backwards, it’s that we can’t claim something is true unless we can explain it as rational actions, but that does not mean we cannot rely upon observations and instrumentation to help us observe and criticize emergent phenomenon. Empiricists claim that other than some intrinsic simple intuitions (grammar, intention, status signal, and empathy etc), all knowledge is gained from sense experience, and this includes all deductions (cognitive science agrees with this hypothesis). This is obvious to people educated after 1980, when cognitive science began to replace psychology, and accelerated after 2000, when pinker restated cognition.

    Instrumentalists argue, correctly, that phenomenon must be reduced to stimuli open to human sense experience and comparison. This is also obvious.

    But then how do we test our hypothesies? We cannot subjectively test physical phenomenon, nor can we reason with the first principles of the universe – we don’t know them.

    So for physical phenomenon we must create experiments to test our hypothesis, where in human phenomenon the same test results are obtained by introspection: if subject to the same stimuli would a reasonable person come to the same conclusion? We could not judge intent or trust others if we did not have this ability so we are marginally indifferent in our ability to judge intentions if possessed of similar (symmetric) knowledge. (This is why informational symmetry is so important.)

    So in matters of human action where we know the first principles, all phenomenon, whether deducible or emergent, must be explainable as a sequence of rational human actions each of which is subject to subjective testing by means of information and sympathy – or it cannot be true. Just as all measurements (observations) of physical tests must be possible to perform in order for the claims of the test to be true. (Bridgman). Just as all mathematical proofs must be open to construction via basic mathematical operations for them to be true. Just as any propertarian law must be constructed from productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers free of negative externality.

    So all scientific disciplines are identical in dependence upon empirical (sense experience) instrumental (reduction to sense experience) operational (existentially possible) constraints.

    THE COUNTER-PROPOSITION

    No one disagrees that if economic phenomenon are not explainable in rational terms that the theory cannot be true.

    The question of economic science is how we can take advantage of emergent phenomenon to bring forward productivity and consumption (wealth) as a means of improving the commons. This is the purpose of credit and interest. But this principle can be applied in hundreds of permutations throughout the economy.

    The moral (German Austrian) implication, is that this study must eschew immoral manipulation (thefts) and work only to improve the institutional means of moral cooperation without the conduct of thefts.

    The immoral (anglo empirical) implication is that this study should seek Pareto optimums (Rawlsian ethics) by reframing ‘harm’ by discounting loss of choice by some to redistribute choice to others.

    I agree with the German thesis, and expressly disagree with the anglo universalist fallacy which has gotten us to this state entirely because anglos were able to seduce the germans into the world war.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 13:30:00 UTC

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 8) WHICH IS MORE LIKELY THE CASE: A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION O

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 8)

    WHICH IS MORE LIKELY THE CASE: A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION OR THE POSSIBILITY OF ANTI-SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISM?

    That people “do things for reasons” tells us precisely nothing about the emergent effects of economic phenomenon, nor how to manipulate the economic information system such that we shift production and consumption forward.

    That people do things for reasons tells us precisely nothing about the temporal relations between cause and effect, and whether we can manipulate conditions to mitigate effects or change time.

    That people do things for reasons tells us precisely nothing about how to deduce emergent phenomenon. Scientists were borne out and praxeology abandoned: praxeology was unfruitful as a means of exploration. And it was unfruitful because the information necessary to perform a deduction (which what a deduction requires) does not exist in the axioms. THIS IS NON ESCAPABLE DEFECT OF AXIOMATIC PRAXEOLOGY – which is why Mises and Rothbard both had to admit that economics was both rational and empirical. One cannot deduce true conclusions from false premises. And incomplete premises provide insufficient information for the construction of deductive truths.

    So what is more likely? That instrumentalism empiricism, operational definitions and intuitionistic testing are necessary in economics just as they are in all fields? Or that economics is somehow “unique”, and that rationalism is just another authoritarian program with a deceptive hidden agenda masked by obscurantist language?

    Even if both propositions were demonstrably equally fruitful, which one is warrantable? In other words, if you will be put to death for being wrong, in a choice between a rationally deduced justification and a ratio empirically criticized definition, which do you choose to bet your life upon? It is one thing to make a statement of faith, another to review the history of rationalist thought, and particularly of cosmopolitan rationalism, and concluding that it has been and remains a failed enterprise.

    Mises only wants to ban government interference in the economy so that he can persist in non-contribution to the commons, and systemic parasitism. All his work is a justification of that separatist ambition.

    Mises suggests we create a model out of economic laws, but admits that we must use empirical evidence to identify those laws. So just as we create a model of physical reality without nowing first principles, we create a model of cooperative economic reality knowing first principles. But just as we may never deduce the full compliment of permutations and emergent phenomenon from simple physical rules (see Fractal logic) we may never deduce the full compliment of permutations and emergent phenomenon from simple behavioral rules. This is the nature of complexity. As such, while we can explain emergent phenomenon we cannot deduce it. And without instrumentation we cannot observe it.

    I think the entire intellectual world has explained sufficiently that the promise of praxeology is nonsense. I think that we now understand the anglo, german and cosmopolitan errors. I think it is obvious that praxeology is a defense of cosmopolitan separatism – an attempt to prohibit the production of an economic commons that is inescapable by free riders.

    I think the whole intellectual world has demonstrated convincingly that economics is practiced as a science, and must be practiced as a science, and that all insights of the German Austrians were added to mainstream economics, and the jewish Austrian movement was abandoned as unscientific (untrue). It is only recently that we know the motivations for creating an untrue proposition – or at least an unproductive pseudoscientific resistance movement. Just as marx, cantor, and freud were cosmopolitan pseudoscientific reactionaries, mises and rothbard were cosmopolitan pseudoscientific reactionaries.

    I am trying only to demonstrate the libertine movement, like all three cosmopolitan movements, is an obscurantist and dishonest one, so that in the future others can outlaw all obscurantists attacks on high trust civilization by mystical, rationalist and pseudoscientific means.

    I originally meant only to criminalize Postmodernism, until I understood that socialism, postmodernism, libertinism, and neo-conservatism had the same objective – the destruction of the western high trust ethic, and the western competitive advantage of creating commons, by preventing the construction of commons, licensing parasitism on any commons, and forcing the people to pay the costs of adventurism that is against their self interest but within their moral dispositions.

    As such, all libertine arguments, like all cosmopolitan arguments, are either lies by their originators, or vectors for lies by unwitting fools.

    As such it is necessary to construct an honest, truthful, scientific institutional model for the construction of a condition of liberty by the only means possible: expansion of property rights to prohibit all such forms of fraud and theft by obscurantist deception.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 13:18:00 UTC

  • RATIONALISTS JUST HAVE IT BACKWARDS – JUSTIFICATION RATHER THAN CRITICISM. The S

    RATIONALISTS JUST HAVE IT BACKWARDS – JUSTIFICATION RATHER THAN CRITICISM. The Silver Rule Wins over The Golden Rule Too – for the same reason.

    Macro economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible even if they are explainable. As such economics is no different from any other constructed upon laws : theories of arbitrary precision open to constant reformation. For economic theories to be testified as true, we must demonstrate that they are open to construction by sympathetic tests.

    As such, just as the golden rule is backwards, and the silver rule is correct, Mises just has praxeology backwards, it’s that we can’t claim something is true unless we can explain it as rational actions, but that does not mean we cannot rely upon observations and instrumentation to help us observe and criticize emergent phenomenon. Empiricists claim that other than some intrinsic simple intuitions (grammar, intention, status signal, and empathy etc), all knowledge is gained from sense experience, and this includes all deductions (cognitive science agrees with this hypothesis). This is obvious to people educated after 1980, when cognitive science began to replace psychology, and accelerated after 2000, when pinker restated cognition.

    Instrumentalists argue, correctly, that phenomenon must be reduced to stimuli open to human sense experience and comparison. This is also obvious.

    But then how do we test our hypothesies? We cannot subjectively test physical phenomenon, nor can we reason with the first principles of the universe – we don’t know them.

    So for physical phenomenon we must create experiments to test our hypothesis, where in human phenomenon the same test results are obtained by introspection: if subject to the same stimuli would a reasonable person come to the same conclusion? We could not judge intent or trust others if we did not have this ability so we are marginally indifferent in our ability to judge intentions if possessed of similar (symmetric) knowledge. (This is why informational symmetry is so important.)

    So in matters of human action where we know the first principles, all phenomenon, whether deducible or emergent, must be explainable as a sequence of rational human actions each of which is subject to subjective testing by means of information and sympathy – or it cannot be true. Just as all measurements (observations) of physical tests must be possible to perform in order for the claims of the test to be true. (Bridgman). Just as all mathematical proofs must be open to construction via basic mathematical operations for them to be true. Just as any propertarian law must be constructed from productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers free of negative externality.

    So all scientific disciplines are identical in dependence upon empirical (sense experience) instrumental (reduction to sense experience) operational (existentially possible) constraints.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 12:40:00 UTC

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 5) THE STRUGGLE TO PRODUCE A MORAL ECONOMIC SCIENCE ——

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 5)

    THE STRUGGLE TO PRODUCE A MORAL ECONOMIC SCIENCE

    ——————————————————-

    THE BRANCHES OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

    The German branch of Austrian economics offered an alternative proposition: that we can and should pursue inquiry into economics as a means of discovering how we may improve our institutions while preserving moral principles of cooperation. This position favors kin selection without encouraging parasitism.

    The mainstream (anglo) position is instead, that we should pay the cost of immoral actions via our institutions if the aggregate benefits are justifiable. This is a philosophical bias that ist he result of the heavily outbred culture of the anglos who for all intents and purposes function as kin, and operate under the principle of kin selection. This position encourages parasitism.

    By contrast, the Jewish branch of Austrian economics attempted, and failed, to cast this argument as one of science(instrumentalism and empiricism) versus logic(axiomatic deduction), while at the same time naming this axiomatic argument a ‘science’, despite not relying upon the scientific method – thus constructing a pseudoscience (meaning: using the term science for credibility without relying on the scientific method to establish credibility). This position seeks to make both parasitism and contribution to the commons impossible.

    Just as universalism is common to the English, and duty common to the German, this attempt to create a pseudoscientific authoritarian philosophy was a result of the cultural bias of Judaism which itself relies upon authoritative law and contractual agreement rather than the european aristocratic egalitarian cultural demand for testifiable truth regardless of circumstances. Contract is a sufficient substitute for truth in low trust polities. But it is not a substitute for truth in high trust polities.

    A TALE OF THREE CULTURES

    Of these three positions, the German was the optimum: scientific, rational, and moral actions to achieve moral ends.

    The anglo position uses science and aggregates and accepts immoral actions in order to attempt to achieve moral ends.

    The German position uses science, reason and individualism in order to preserve moral conditions while achieving economic optimums.

    The Jewish position relies upon pseudoscience to achieve individual optimums but ignores morality and commons altogether – because judaic law is constructed contractually, not on principle (truth telling), and as a diasporic culture, it does not require contribution to the commons as do land holding social orders.

    Each of these cultural strategies is beneficial for island dwelling anglo universalists(truth), continent-dwelling german martial culture (duty), and disasporic un-landed jewish culture (contract).

    However, if we separate the pragmatism of cultural group evolutionary strategy from that which is true independent of those cultural strategies – cultural definitions of true – only the German model survives scrutiny as containing the full suite of properties: truth, duty, commons, individual and collective morality, under science and reason.

    THE PREFERENCE FOR THE AUSTRIAN MODEL IS A PREFERENCE FOR A MORAL DICIPLINE OF ECONOMICS

    Had not the world wars disrupted the Austrian school and destroyed german civilization in a fractious civil war, this debate might have evolved and been completed earlier, instead of devolving into mainstream half-moral anglo aggregate morality, and a discredited heterodox school.

    But at present the Austrian vision of a moral economics constructed for nations, preserving kin selection, preventing parasitism, preserving both individual and aggregate morality, preserving the commons, requiring truth-telling, and operating under ratio-scientific methods, is displaced for two reasons:

    1) The post-war dominance of (dysgenic, suicidal) anglo universalism justified under Keynesian socialism and Rawlsian ethics. A suicidal strategy only possible under the unique conditions of western altruistic punishment. (See Wiki) Westerners are the only people to develop universal high trust and to break the familial cycle of corruption. However, this appears to have created a weakness in that we extend this trust suicidally and ignore the reproductive and evolutionary importance of the family, tribe, and nation, and in creating that high trust society in the first place.

    2) The marginalization of the Austrian ambition for a moral economics because of the adoption of marxist ideological and propaganda techniques in advocating the pseudoscientific Jewish Austrian program – in no small part by the Mises Institute (without whom, and the use of the new medium of the internet, the pseudoscientific branch would likely have been extinguished.) As such the term Austrian is categorized under pseudoscientific and anti-scientific, rather than as the german branch originally evolved: the institutional means of improving moral cooperation in the pursuit of prosperity.

    ADVANCES IN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    Mises’s praxeology is a failed attempt at developing economic Intuitionism and Operationalism. Economics is of necessity, like all scientific investigation, a ratio-empirical methodology for the study of phenomenon beyond our direct perception. In his failure he attempted to create a pseudoscience to justify his authoritarian preferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 05:28:00 UTC

  • Science Is A Moral Discipline In Which We Struggle to Speak Truthfully

    [S]cience is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully: 1 — We test our relations for categorical consistency (identity) 2— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency. 3— We test our observations with external correspondence. 4— We test the existential possibilities of our premises by defining them in operational language 5— We test the rationality of our choices by subjective testing of incentives – all human action is rationally self interested. 6— We test the morality of our display, word, and deed by reciprocity: reciprocal tests of rationality. 7— We test the consequences of our theories for externalities (involuntary transfers). 8— We test the completeness of our statements with a tests of full accounting and limits. 9— We test the coherence of our statements with this list of constant relations both categorical, internal, external, existential, complete, and limited, including the rational when a matter of personal action, and reciprocal when a matter of interpersonal and political action. Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm. Because scientific method consists of due diligences necessary to warranty that we speak truthfully.  And by truthfully we mean consistent, correspondent, complete, rational, and moral, and laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Curt Doolittle Testimonialism and Propertarianism The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Science Is A Moral Discipline In Which We Struggle to Speak Truthfully

    [S]cience is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully: 1 — We test our relations for categorical consistency (identity) 2— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency. 3— We test our observations with external correspondence. 4— We test the existential possibilities of our premises by defining them in operational language 5— We test the rationality of our choices by subjective testing of incentives – all human action is rationally self interested. 6— We test the morality of our display, word, and deed by reciprocity: reciprocal tests of rationality. 7— We test the consequences of our theories for externalities (involuntary transfers). 8— We test the completeness of our statements with a tests of full accounting and limits. 9— We test the coherence of our statements with this list of constant relations both categorical, internal, external, existential, complete, and limited, including the rational when a matter of personal action, and reciprocal when a matter of interpersonal and political action. Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm. Because scientific method consists of due diligences necessary to warranty that we speak truthfully.  And by truthfully we mean consistent, correspondent, complete, rational, and moral, and laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Curt Doolittle Testimonialism and Propertarianism The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine