Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • SENTIMENTAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL: LEGAL DECIDABILITY We can construct lib

    SENTIMENTAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL: LEGAL DECIDABILITY

    We can construct libertarianism as a sentimental, ratio-moral, or ratio-legal, or legal-empirical framework. But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption. This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent. However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a that ratio-legal law is calculated. Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it. Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property. There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 10:35:00 UTC

  • CANADIAN PRIVILEGE (reposted) (fun) AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT

    CANADIAN PRIVILEGE

    (reposted) (fun)

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers.

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples. Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force.

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest. Little conflict over territory. No conflict over sovereignty.

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict. Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable. The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well. Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference. People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess. They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy, France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china, conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason. They can afford to. They are able to. Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 06:45:00 UTC

  • Ya wanna know the secret? Science is the art of speaking truthfully. It hasn’t g

    Ya wanna know the secret? Science is the art of speaking truthfully. It hasn’t got anything to with whether we talk about the physical world, or the world of human action, or any other discipline that operates by different rules of regularity. It’s just learning to speak truthfully – and that’s hard. That’s it. Nothing more than that.

    Now ‘the truth’ is just a bit of ideological nonsense – the search for god. It’s meaningless. Searching for truth is like searching for god. A bit of verbal naivety. A child’s mythos.

    Instead, we try to speak as truthfully as possible at whatever level of precision we are capable of currently speaking in any given field of inquiry. Our search is merely to find the most truthful expression we can craft short of a tautology.

    Cool huh?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 11:51:00 UTC

  • ON BITCOIN’S FUTURE – THERE IS NO POST-CAPITALIST FUTURE ON THE HORIZON. BITCOIN

    ON BITCOIN’S FUTURE – THERE IS NO POST-CAPITALIST FUTURE ON THE HORIZON. BITCOIN OR NO.

    um… capitalism (private property, contract, money, prices, and consequential incentives) will exist forever in the same way that math will exist forever, because it is a necessary information system. That can’t go away – ever, because capitalism is required for the voluntary organization of production.

    It is not capitalism that will be replaced, it is the reliance on the banking system that evolved during the era of hard currencies, that will be replaced.

    There is no evidence that a distributed block chain employing proof of work is superior to a series of centrally managed databases such as Visa, Mastercard, and Amex, wherein transactions are immediately verified.

    What is unique to this technology is that under fiat currency, each unit of currency is equal to a share of stock in the corporation of the state, which while not redeemable via the state, is insured by the state, and functions as a medium of exchange, unit of account and at least short term store of value.

    Digital currency represents a divisible, fractional share of the issuing network. The state currency is insured by the state, but the digital currency is private and uninsured.

    The state is more likely to demand that any network of sufficient scale is insured for it to be issued to the public without harm. I expect this legislation to appear within the coming decade.

    Digital currency merely removes the middleman – the bank – from the distribution channel for the currency, and therefore the need for the bank to insure each transaction during the period of clearance when performing an escrow service.

    This is the primary value of all bitcoin related technologies.

    CONVERSELY

    It is not rational to expect that the state will allow a digital currency to remain unregulated primarily because it is a ready-made vehicle for tax evasion and money laundering. (as we have already seen.) And digital currencies (a fractional share of a BTC network used as a money substitute) to rely upon infrastructure that is too perishable (even more so thank ATM networks) and as such the economic impact of such currency failure is too vast.

    So digital currencies will never evolve into replacements for fiat money – they may only be used as a store of value against the loss of purchasing power of the fiat currency, when the money supply is inflated.

    So the post-hard-currency era (I predict) will eliminate banks as a means of central distribution of credit to consumers, and function entirely as means of financing business credit. And transaction costs will drop precipitously since there is no escrow risk on the part of the bank.

    But I might as well bark at the moon because the people who talk about their fantasies for bitcoin are ideologues who have very little comprehension about that which they speak.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 09:42:00 UTC

  • Contrary to the Libertarian position the soviet union did not fail for economic

    Contrary to the Libertarian position the soviet union did not fail for economic reasons, it failed because of institutional problems and systemic corruption when a coup failed and dismantled the presumption of the persistence of power. The illusion was dispelled.

    Had this illusion been maintained, yes, the soviet union would have remained a poor and backward civilization but that was the price for unifying so many primitive peoples and so much territory.

    The undesirable nature of living life in such poverty, under such tyranny, by so many, particularly those of talents made flight attractive. But if we view it as a proletarian government trying to control natural elites, and seeking rents from them, I think that is the most concrete positioning. The soviets were an underclass movement, and they succeeded in walling in their talent, and neutralizing the economic differences between the talent groups in the most successful large scale redistribution from producer to the peasantry in history. However, this CAN WORK. The problem is that the cost of enforcing such a system produced and always will, externalities that are much more dangerous than redistributing only that which people are HAPPY to pay for the success of their KIN.

    The north sea people are as inbred as appalachian hill folk. That’s why they favor redistribution – everyone is family, and looks and acts like it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 08:40:00 UTC

  • I don’t like making people feel bad. I have a problem coercing people. I have a

    I don’t like making people feel bad. I have a problem coercing people. I have a problem enslaving people. I have a problem hurting people. I have a problem torturing people. But I have no problem at all killing people – in fact, we do too little of it. There is no excuse for causing human pain and suffering – and anyone who engages in it is a threat to all of us. And that is the only reason to eschew the imposition of suffering – because of what it means about our own people. But in competition and conflict, killing people – and as many of them possible – is the necessary, right, just, and moral thing to do. Eliminating a problem and reveling in the suffering of others, are two different things. Killing people, and often a lot of them, is merely solving a problem. And better yet, if they know that is your position you will be much less likely to have to engage in it. So the commitment to killing people, and a lot of them, albeit without causing suffering, is the best means of ensuring one does not have to.

    Punish the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 08:38:00 UTC

  • EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT? (important piece) (central

    EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT?

    (important piece) (central theory)

    You can deduce a mathematical answer, and offer a proof of construction of that mathematical answer, because mathematics consists largely of formal operations – even if we label them incorrectly for marketing purposes. (Functions as numbers so to speak.) And the operations that we deduce with are the same (mostly) that we construct with. So much so that they constitute tautological differences only.

    But this emphasis on exploring with the same tools that we use for constructing proofs, has distracted us. The fact that we deduce something mathematically is irrelevant – it’s the fact that we can offer a proof of construction operationally that is the ‘proof’ – not the deduction. The deduction is what we take credit for, but it might as well be an act of accidental stumbling.

    We face this same problem in logic – we can deduce, something however we want to – in some vague approximation of the mathematics wherein the process of deduction mirrors the process of construction.

    But it is NOT the DEDUCTION that provides us with value, it is the proof of construction that has value – that tells us that a theory is testifiably true – as existentially possible.

    ***The better perspective is that the delta between our means of deduction and our means of construction simplifies the likelihood that we CAN at some point create a proof of construction.***

    So here again, Popper is ALMOST RIGHT. It’s not the justification or the deduction that matters. But he fails to grasp that it is the proof of construction that tests a theory, then it is the proof of construction of an internally consistent description. That it is a proof of external correspondence. That we have limited the errors in that correspondence through falsification.

    Of course justification of one’s deductions doesn’t matter! The question is whether your theory is demonstrably parsimonious enough that we can use it without harm (waste), and whether you warranty it as such.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 08:55:00 UTC

  • The Reason For Western Rates of Development?

    POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers. [D]ragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism. For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits. THE FORMULA If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited. As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production. The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation. (pretty cool really) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. de.aristocratia at gmail.com

  • The Reason For Western Rates of Development?

    POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers. [D]ragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism. For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits. THE FORMULA If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited. As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production. The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation. (pretty cool really) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. de.aristocratia at gmail.com

  • POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosopher

    POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers.

    Dragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism.

    For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits.

    THE FORMULA

    If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited.

    As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production.

    The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation.

    (pretty cool really)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    de.aristocratia at gmail.com

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 07:00:00 UTC