Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • THE EVOLUTION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING (even if I solve cooperation that does not so

    THE EVOLUTION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING

    (even if I solve cooperation that does not solve sentience)

    0 – 1100 BC – HOMER (WESTERN HEROIC RELIGION)

    1 – 330 BC SOCRATES-PLATO-ARISTOTLE (REASON)

    The universe is simple and regular.

    2 – 1620 BACON (EMPIRICISM)

    2 – 1687 NEWTON ( EQUATIONS – PHYSICAL UNIVERSE).

    Change from Geometry to Equations.

    Behind all of nature was simple laws and ordered.

    Four Pillars of Western Science.

    3 – 1850 – DARWIN (ADAPTATION TO CONTEXT – BIOLOGY)

    The four pillars are false. it is not that regular.

    4 – 1936 TURING (INFORMATION – ALGORITHMS – NON-SMOOTH)

    Most influential paper in mathematics in the past few hundred years

    5 – 1880-1970 FAIL (COOPERATION)

    The operational revolution fails. (What I am trying to do)

    Spencer, Mises, Brouwer, Bridgman, Hayek, Popper.

    I am pretty sure I solved this.

    6 – ???? ??????? (SENTIENCE)

    the measurement of reason (what Taleb is really trying to do)

    (I have no idea what lies beyond sentience – if anything does.)

    IT TOOK US A LONG TIME

    ————————————————

    “Kurgan culture”:

    – Bug-Dniester (6th millennium)

    – Samara (5th millennium)

    – Kvalynsk (5th millennium)

    – Sredny Stog (mid-5th to mid-4th millennia)

    – Dnieper-Donets (5th to 4th millennia)

    – Usatovo culture (late 4th millennium)

    – Maikop-Dereivka (mid-4th to mid-3rd millennia)

    TIMELINE

    4500–4000: Early PIE. Sredny Stog, Dnieper-Donets and Samara cultures, domestication of the horse (Wave 1).

    4000–3500: The Pit Grave culture (a.k.a. Yamna culture), the prototypical kurgan builders, emerges in the steppe, and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus. Indo-Hittite models postulate the separation of Proto-Anatolian before this time.

    4000-3500 BC – THE DOMESTICATION OF THE HORSE

    3500 BC – THE IMPORT OF THE WHEEL FROM EUROPE

    3300 BC – EVIDENCE OF CHARIOTS

    3500–3000: Middle PIE. The Pit Grave culture is at its peak, representing the classical reconstructed Proto-Indo-European society with stone idols, predominantly practicing animal husbandry in permanent settlements protected by hillforts, subsisting on agriculture, and fishing along rivers. Contact of the Pit Grave culture with late Neolithic Europe cultures results in the “kurganized” Globular Amphora and Baden cultures (Wave 2). The Maykop culture shows the earliest evidence of the beginning Bronze Age, and Bronze weapons and artifacts are introduced to Pit Grave territory. Probable early Satemization.

    3000–2500: Late PIE. The Pit Grave culture extends over the entire Pontic steppe (Wave 3). The Corded Ware culture extends from the Rhine to the Volga, corresponding to the latest phase of Indo-European unity, the vast “kurganized” area disintegrating into various independent languages and cultures, still in loose contact enabling the spread of technology and early loans between the groups, except for the Anatolian and Tocharian branches, which are already isolated from these processes. The Centum-Satem break is probably complete, but the phonetic trends of Satemization remain active.

    — OUR PEOPLE ARE NOW DIVIDED INTO BRANCHES —

    —“<QUOTE>

    The find probably marks the end of more than 100 years of archaeological debate over whether the great cultural upheaval seen in the Bronze Age (2700 BC. to 500 BC.) was driven by ideas or by immigration.

    “It is completely ground breaking, and the entire history must now be rewritten into a story of mobility and human expansion,” says archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen from Gothenburg University. He led the archaeological part of the study.

    By extracting and identifying genetic material from 101 Bronze Age people excavated in Europe and Asia, the scientists were able to see who Bronze Age people were and how they were related.

    “This is the largest study ever — more than double that of all previous studies combined — and for the first time we can make population studies on fossil genetics,” says Assistant Professor Morten E. Allentoft from the Centre for GeoGenetics.

    The study has just been published in Nature alongside a similar study, led by Professor David Reich from Harvard Medical School, which maps the DNA of 69 Bronze Age people and supports the same conclusions.

    Europeans were created by three migrations

    The last few years were an intense race between Willerslev and Reich to be the first to map and analyse the European’s ancient genetic material.

    They have already shown that modern Europeans share the genetic components of the early hunters but with the arrival of farming culture about 8500 years ago, there was a mixing with new genetic components. This shows up as a genetic difference between southern and northern Europe.

    Neolithic people (4000-1700 BC) resemble us more but there is still something missing, and last year it became clear to scientists that there must have been a third wave of migration.

    This was a migration to northern Europe, which could explain the genetic differences between northern and southern Europeans today.

    “Whether the sample was taken in Germany, Poland, Denmark or Sweden, we see the same component, and we can show that it comes from the Caucasus,” says Allentoft.

    The component matches that of the relatively unknown steppe people, the Yamnaya, who were nomads from thousands of kilometres north of the Caucasus between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

    Reichs and Willerslev’s research groups agree that the Yamnaya tribe migrated west into northern Europe around 5,000 years ago.

    Previous archaeological findings have shown that changes occurred in northern Europe around the same time.

    The Yamnaya brought a completely new social structure with them, says Kristiansen.

    “Pastoral people are more collective and live in villages, but with [the Yamnaya] there’s a much more individualistic culture, organised in nuclear families. You can see the change in the funeral rituals they introduce, such as the family burial mounds,” he says.

    The Yamnaya were a nomadic people who brought livestock with them and used horses to pull wagons that carried all their belongings. They burned forests to create grazing land until about 2000 BC when they began to settle down.

    “But we see individual households with family farms and not villages,” says Kristiansen and points to a fundamental change of Europeans both culturally and genetically.

    “They are our main ancestor,” he says.

    Here, the first Yamnaya replaced the existing people, and then around 1,000 years later Yamnaya in Central Asia are abruptly replaced by a warlike people called Sintashta.

    the migration of the Yamnaya culture seems to solve the old conundrum about the origins of Indo-European language.

    “The mystery is solved — the Indo-European language is first spread in Europe and then east to Iran and India,” said Kristiansen.

    The Yamnaya eastern migration also solves the riddle of how the now extinct Indo-European language Tokaisk arose from within China.

    The new study strongly supports the “steppe hypothesis”, which claims that the Indo-European languages spread with these steppe people as late as 3,700 to 2,000 BC.

    Why did the Yamnaya people migrate?

    With large pieces of the puzzle beginning to fall into place, new questions open up — such as what triggered that Yamnaya culture to migrate in the first place.

    Kristiansen explains the current belief is that there was a decrease in farmers about 100 to 200 years before the Yamnaya migrated. One hypothesis is that these communities were hit by illness or crop failure and famine, which provided space for the Yamnaya.

    The new studies set the stage for further work, to map genetic material deeper back in time, as well as our more recent history.

    “We can for example see the formation of the modern Dane is not quite complete 2,000 years ago,” says Willerslev. “It could be really interesting to see what happens later in the Iron Age and Viking times.”<END QUOTE>”—

    My point being that the steppe breeds for aggression and we are failing to understand that it reverses thousands of years of peadomorphic evolution by western man.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-21 10:41:00 UTC

  • ORDER IN COMMUNICATION Chaos (non-identity) Identity (existence) Tautology(neces

    ORDER IN COMMUNICATION

    Chaos (non-identity)

    Identity (existence)

    Tautology(necessity),

    Proof(possibility),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(narrative/meaningful)

    Daydreaming -stream of consicusness – (free association )

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    OPERATIONALIZED (by Moritz Bierling)

    1) I recognize that when I try to form a connection between these concepts (follow this recipe), I can make it work.

    2) I recognize that when I think about this recipe, I feel good about my ability to make this connection mentally (follow the sequence/relation).

    3) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, I benefit sufficiently to outweigh the cost of the action.

    4) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, others react negatively to my action and therefore costs me something.

    5) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) I recognize that this recipe works for everyone at all times under all circumstances.

    8) I recognize that this recipe describes completely the thing it produces.

    EXPLANATION (by Moritz Bierling)

    “Recipes unlock opportunities of varying size with respect to the acquisition of energy at lower cost than the actor following the recipe expends, and recipes require the actor applying them to expend different amounts of energy depending on their complexity and the number of steps they contain, and we call those recipes more true that contain fewer errors, and those recipes resulting in the highest energy yield while requiring the least amount of steps we call of high utility.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:30:00 UTC

  • REVIEW OF THE PAST CENTURY 18-28 postwar up-and-down rapid recession and boom. 2

    REVIEW OF THE PAST CENTURY

    18-28 postwar up-and-down rapid recession and boom.

    29-39 the economy destroyed and the ongoing depression.

    40-46 the war years converted the economy.

    50’s-62 were …. celebratory. American war-dividend. And evolved into majority white collar, majority home owning, and majority car driving, and majority appliance owning.

    63-72 a catastrophe – the proles ascended postwar consuming it. spread of ‘great society’, destruction of the black family followed by white, immigration act, all the socialist programs…

    73-78 depressing decline as the 60’s played out.

    80’s once again celebratory as we ended socialism reascended

    90’s absurd as we reaped the benefits the fall of world communism and technology

    2001-2002 a shock as we overplayed our hand.

    2003-2007 comfortable but cautious.

    2008-2016 (obama) a lost decade.

    In the 80’s we might have been spoiled, but we weren’t losers like the 60’s and 70’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:01:00 UTC

  • Identity(categories / properties) Mathematics (ratio operations) Logic (language

    Identity(categories / properties)

    Mathematics (ratio operations)

    Logic (language / set operations )

    Programs (decisions)

    Operations (recipes) (actions)

    Science (general rules)

    Literature (associations)

    Religion (conflation)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 16:48:00 UTC

  • STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES Communism …. (lower class – short term – consumpt

    STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    …. (strength in numbers)

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchange)

    …. (productive offense – market exchange of assets)

    …. (strength in adaptation/evolution)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    …. (strength in ability[resources])

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible)

    …. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible)

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 16:03:00 UTC

  • NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE 5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Phil

    NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE

    5-Literature

    4-Religion

    3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs)

    2-Intellectual History

    1-History

    0-Law

    1-Science

    —Curt

    Tautology(necessary),

    Proof(possible),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(meaningful) —Curt

    We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt

    Shinto when we’re born,

    Confucian when we’re adolescent,

    Christian when we’re married,

    Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying

    Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle

    “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty

    “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt

    “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt

    Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt

    Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt

    What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (

    …. ….Christian Monarchism

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchagne)

    …. (productive offense – market eschange of assets)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    The west is deconflationary. we do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them. We maintain a competition, and circumvent a monopoly.

    LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.

    UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.

    IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.

    Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent

    —Curt

    –“The collapse of the ottoman empire (Turks) allows the primitives (Salafis) to determine the authoritarian voice of Islam. Had the Turkish sultan maintained control of Islam, then it is possible that Islam would have reformed and the primitivism might have been suppressed as it was in other civilizations.”— Roger Scruton.

    “There is nothing that a democratic polity is accountable to but itself.”—Rorty But this is false. This says that the majority underclass under majoritarian monopoly rule is unaccountable to the consequences they force upon the middle and upper classes, and the genetic, territorial, normative, institutional, informational, and monumental capital of the civilization.—Curt Doolittle

    —“Truth isn’t correspondence with reality. Truth is just whatever it takes for people to obtain what they want.”–Rorty He is saying nothing matters. My question is why others have any reason or justification for not committing violence against those that oppose our preferences and interests. –Curt

    —“Conservatives are people who are aware of the fact that they’ve inherited something good, and want to conserve what is good. It’s much easier to destroy things than create them. It’s much easier to criticize existing things that are imperfect, than to construct things are better.”—Roger Scruton

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:37:00 UTC

  • (in progress) (note to self) TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    (in progress) (note to self)

    TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    -The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    -The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.

    -The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.

    -The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.

    Everything else is education

    THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.

    1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )

    2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).

    3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).

    4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.

    5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Soveriegn Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.

    6) By incrementally suppressing all unsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those unsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.

    7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.

    8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c)

    TRUTH

    The problem of the second Great Deceit.

    Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.

    The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.

    Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions

    Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.

    We already know most of those due diligences.

    But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.

    Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).

    LAW

    When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).

    We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)

    Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.

    This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.

    To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.

    The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.

    Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.

    MARKET FOR COMMONS

    The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.

    ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION

    Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND

    But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.

    AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED

    Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.

    Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:

    1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)

    2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)

    3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)

    4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)

    5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)

    6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)

    SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE

    What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).

    TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT

    So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.

    Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.

    WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT

    Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.

    Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.

    If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.

    THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’

    So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.

    YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE

    If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.

    Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:44:00 UTC

  • (in progress)(note to self) Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and

    (in progress)(note to self)

    Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and Economists in your opinion?” — Jose R. Alzaibar

    1. UNSCIENTIFIC (INCOMPLETE)

    Well, I’ll try to do a better job than Nassim Taleb at making a similar point, and say that to testify that you speak truthfully, and that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, for the purpose of committing fraud, economists would have to provide the following warranties of due diligence of their propositions:

    a) categorical consistency (identity)

    b) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    c) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    d) existential possibility (operational descriptions) *praxeological*

    e) moral possibility (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    f) limits, full accounting, and parsimony (fully accounted)

    In economics, except in rare circumstances, only a,b,c are ever vaguely satisfied. item (d) is almost never satisfied, and (e) is never satisfied, and they seem to be not even aware of the importance of (f).

    Now, regarding (d), existential possibility, in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, we only know that the universe equilibrates fully at all times, and therefore, that mathematics can be used to precisely model phenomenon that we observe. At some point we hope to know the first principles of the universe, and once we do, we can test our theories by operational construction from first principles. So in the physical sciences we must run tests and rely upon mathematical equilibrium (so-called ‘perfect symmetry’) and upon determinism (the result of the production of perfect symmetry via perfect equilibrium) as the test of our theories.

    Also, regarding (e), moral possibility, the universe does not have the choice of acting morally and preserving the incentive to cooperate, or immorally to hinder the incentive to cooperate. The universe is amoral, and we do not cooperate with it, we are merely subject to its laws.

    So (d) existential possibility, by tested by operational construction and (e) moral possibility, tested by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited externalities of the same criteria, are not properties we can yet (d), or ever shall (e), ask one another to warranty that one has done due diligence to test prior to testifying (stating) any theory.

    But when making statements in economics (the monetary measurement of cooperation), social sciences (the categorical study of cooperation), and the institutional method of existence of cooperation: habit, norm, ethics, morals, law, tradition, ritual, and mythos – we can both test (d) existential possibility and (e) moral possibility.

    The reason being that we know the first principles of human behavior through subjective testing of incentives (‘understanding the other person’s incentives’). and we must know that because without an understanding of intentions and incentives we could neither cooperate, nor reward one another for cooperation, nor punish one another for actions that inhibit cooperation. We could not form juries which depend entirely upon the ascertainment of intentions and incentives. The pre-cooperative creature finds safety in numbers, mating in numbers, information in numbers, but merely seizes opportunities amidst competitive threats within the limits of the creature’s range of perception and action. They do not cooperate. To cooperate requires a sympathetic transfer of intention between individuals.

    So, since man is a rational actor in the pursuit of his desires and following his incentives – even at the extremes of mental disability, if we can ascertain a sequence of events and actions, each of which we can subjectively test as ‘reasonably rational’, then we can construct a recipe (sequence of events) under which the individual’s actions are ethical, moral, and possible – or not.

    Now we come to (f), the determination of limits, parsimony, and full accounting. And these tests demonstrate the troublesome difference between our warranty of due diligence of the physical universe and our warranty of due diligence in cooperation. That is that the universe perfectly equilibrates because it must, and man does not perfectly equilibrate *because he must not.* And in that difference we find the opposite importance between mathematics of perfect symmetry in the physical universe, and operational construction in in the universe of human cooperation.

    So, mainstream

    (…how man always bends objective ethics and morals to accommodate current distributions of ability…)

    2. SELF CONFIRMING SELECTION BIAS INSTEAD OF FULL ACCOUNTING

    3. TRUTH (SCIENCE, FACILITATION,EUGENICS) VS FALSEHOOD (INTERFERENCE/FRAUD/DYSGENICS)

    Different camps possess different levels of confidence (arrogance).

    (a) social science (Austrian – positive externality) long term.

    (b) rule of law (freshwater – balanced externality) medium term.

    (c) rule by discretion (saltwater – negative externality) short term.

    So the conservative movement practices social science, the rule of law movement practices good government, and the rule by discretion movement practices what they consider the most immediately human (arbitrary) discretion.

    Different camps favor families and capital construction and others favor individual consumption.

    Different camps are more comfortable interfering with planning and contract, and others are less comfortable interfering with planning an contract.

    4. REPRODUCTIVE TIME PREFERENCE, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

    (a) Parasites encourage consumption by the host, and then move to a new host.

    (b) Members insure one another against extraordinary hardships.

    (c) People subject the population to constant culling in pursuit of constant improvement.

    5. UNIVERSALISM

    6. DYSGENIC, DECIVILIZING, DEVOLUTIONARY

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:39:00 UTC

  • SEQUENCE: … PHYSICAL LAW … … EVOLUTIONARY LAW … … … COOPERATIVE (NAT

    SEQUENCE:

    … PHYSICAL LAW

    … … EVOLUTIONARY LAW

    … … … COOPERATIVE (NATURAL) LAW

    … … … … SENTIENT LAW (Limits of the Mind)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 09:00:00 UTC

  • Ten Thoughts on Money

    Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

    1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’. 2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle). 3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific. 4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit. 5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone. 6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity. 7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable. 8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity. 9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter. 10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive. Those are the major topics.