Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • (a) a solution and set of demands, (b) a plan of transition, (c) the means of re

    (a) a solution and set of demands, (b) a plan of transition, (c) the means of revolt, (d)moral authority to act.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-07 02:08:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740002438703394816

    Reply addressees: @GodDamnRoads @ThomasEWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740001681849634816

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740001681849634816

  • COMPARE TESTIMONIALISM WITH TOULMIN Testimonialism proves explanatory power acro

    COMPARE TESTIMONIALISM WITH TOULMIN

    Testimonialism proves explanatory power across every domain.

    Toulmin -vs- Testimonialism

    “Claim,” : Hypothesis (guess)

    “Data,” : External Correspondence

    “Warrant”: Existential Possibility (operational)

    “Backing”: Internal Consistency

    “Rebuttal” : Limits

    “Qualifier” : Warranty (confidence)

    TOULMIN:

    In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:

    Claim: Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)

    Data: The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)

    Warrant: The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

    Backing: Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

    Rebuttal: Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

    Qualifier: Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

    The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:52:00 UTC

  • THE SCOPE OF CRITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY (testimonialism, propertarianism, nomocracy,

    THE SCOPE OF CRITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

    (testimonialism, propertarianism, nomocracy, and aristocratic egalitarianism, in a nutshell)

    Truth:

    We can never know we speak the truth, only if we speak truthfully, and then only by performing due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    Epistemology:

    We can freely associate and develop an hypothesis. The method by which we arrive at the hypothesis does not influence the truth of our guess. Those hypotheses that survive our due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, may be warrantied to one another as theories. Those theories that survive criticism against error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, are truth candidates. Those that survive enduringly we call ‘laws’. All knowledge follows this evolution: Free association, hypothesis, theory, law.

    Ethics:

    We cannot know what is a good action, only what is a bad action. A bad action is one that imposes costs. The only way not to impose costs is to limit one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of the external imposition of costs upon others.

    Law:

    Create negative law empirically by the resolution of disputes, and incrementally evolve the suppression of parasitism, leaving only new innovations in parasitism, and the remaining positive actions available.

    Liberty:

    Suppress corruption and involuntary transfer and only liberty remains.

    Rule:

    We cannot know good rule except in distant retrospect, we can only know bad rule. The best rule then is that no man rule, and we rule by law. Law does not ask us to be good. It demands only that we are not bad.

    Politics:

    We cannot know what is good, only what we are willing to pay for. The majority cannot know what is good, only what is bad. Ego: Transform democratic majority assent into legal (suit) minority dissent in producing commons. Anything that is both willingly paid for and survives the test of badness or falseness, is the only possible good.

    Religion:

    We cannot know what religions are good, only those that are bad. Those that are bad are not compatible with natural and physical law. Those that are compatible are the only religions that remain.

    Universal:

    The only way to know what to do unto one’s neighbor is to not do that which you would not want done unto you.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 10:12:00 UTC

  • PROFOUND. ANGLO=GERMAN < 1840. ANGLO != GERMAN > 1880 1) Jefferson was the first

    PROFOUND.

    ANGLO=GERMAN < 1840. ANGLO != GERMAN > 1880

    1) Jefferson was the first CONSTITUTIONALIST (USING: LAW/FORCE) An Aristocrat. (Protestant)

    2) Burke was the first CONSERVATIVE (USING: MORALITY/GOSSIP) The Upper Middle Class (Tilting Catholic)

    3) Disraeli was the first NEOCON (USING: COMMERCE/REMUNERATION) The Middle Class (Tilting Jew)

    This in itself is a profound statement about the devolution of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 06:45:00 UTC

  • THE UNDERSTANDABLE ORIGINS OF JUSTIFICATIONISM We evolved justificationary argum

    THE UNDERSTANDABLE ORIGINS OF JUSTIFICATIONISM

    We evolved justificationary argument for a set of understandable reasons:

    0) Our memories evolved to repeat what succeeded in the past.

    1) We learned to observe one another, then teach one another by imitation.

    2) It’s far less expensive to describe a route from problem to solution, rather than compare all alternative routes.

    3) Moral and legal rules are contractual, and as such at least lightly axiomatic, and therefore justificationary: “i did this because I though it ok to do this in our group”.

    4) Mathematics evolved prior to science, and as the most simple form of logic, it is the logical discipline in which the method of exploration and the method of proof (justification) are operationally nearly identical. Mathematics appeared to be justificationary because of this limited difference between exploration and proof.

    So between the evolutionary results of memory, learning through imitation, the economic demands of thought, moral justification, and mathematica justification, we continued the trend attempting to make truth justificationary.

    But truth is not constrained by our costs of finding it, the limits of our memories, the difficulty in transmitting it, and our moral appreciation for it.

    Truth is what it is precisely because it is not bounded by human limits.

    Truth is that description which both provides us with a recipe that consistently produces an existential result within a set of limits, and survives all attempts at falsification within those limits.

    Limits are significant, since professing the existential possibility of a perfect, complete, most parsimonious truth is in itself a logical impossibility. Parsimony depends upon the limits of the mind.

    So more parsimonious truths may be possible on any subject, but there are not more parsimonious truths within the limit of the claims we make.

    Limits are how we remove platonism – mysticism – from the art of truth telling. This remains a fallacy within critical rationalism that operationalism – the test of existential possibility – assists us in correcting.

    This process Re-Aryanizes “Truth” into testimony. And all the rest that we do not know is merely unknown information yet to be discovered or invented.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 04:47:00 UTC

  • MISSING LIBRARY SECTION Ramsey Mekdaschi SECTION: COMMONS Ostrom, Elinor (1990).

    MISSING LIBRARY SECTION

    Ramsey Mekdaschi

    SECTION: COMMONS

    Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

    Ostrom, Elinor; Schroeder, Larry; Wynne, Susan (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: infrastructure policies in perspective.

    Ostrom, Elinor; Walker, James; Gardner, Roy (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources.

    Ostrom, Elinor; Walker, James (2003). Trust and reciprocity: interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research.

    Ostrom, Elinor (2005). Understanding institutional diversity.

    Ostrom, Elinor; Kanbur, Ravi; Guha-Khasnobis, Basudeb (2007). Linking the formal and informal economy: concepts and policies.

    Ostrom, Elinor; Hess, Charlotte (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice.

    The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs

    The Economy of Cities by Jane Jacobs

    Cities and the Wealth of Nations by Jane Jacobs

    Moral Basis of a Backward SocietyFeb 1, 1967 by Edward C. Banfield

    The Unheavenly City RevisitedNov 1, 1990 by Edward C. Banfield

    Mancur Olsen (Everything really)

    The City: A Global History by Joel Kottkin

    Tribes by Joel Kottkin

    (QUESTIONABLE)

    Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities by Wendy Pullan.

    Urban centres across the world were built for racial separation

    The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History, Edited by Peter Clark

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-11 04:47:00 UTC

  • Testimonial Truth + Propertarian Ethics + Market Government + Aristocratic Egali

    Testimonial Truth + Propertarian Ethics + Market Government + Aristocratic Egalitarian Aesthetics.

    Natural Law + Common Law + Judicial Priesthood + TheOath/Testimony/Jury + Market Government + Expansionary Enfranchisement.

    History + Social Science + Philosophy + Law and Government + Group Evolutionary Strategy + Aesthetics + Literature

    Acquisition and cooperation

    Incremental Suppression of free riding

    Transaction cost theory of government

    Rates of calculation (experimentation)

    Eugenic reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-10 06:55:00 UTC

  • Identity: The Categorical Instrument Logic: The Set Instrument Mathematics: The

    Identity: The Categorical Instrument

    Logic: The Set Instrument

    Mathematics: The Relational Instrument

    Physics: The Causal Instrument

    Operationalism: The Existential Instrument

    Economics: The Cooperative Instrument

    Reason: The Rational (Linguistic) Instrument

    Social Instrumentalism: Debate, Criticism, Testing.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-08 14:10:00 UTC

  • (Repost. Oldie but goodie) 1) Fiat Money(1) The operating principle behind fiat

    (Repost. Oldie but goodie)

    1) Fiat Money(1) The operating principle behind fiat money is to require taxes be paid using it. This creates a demand for the fiat money that cannot be satisfied without widespread trade that makes use of it, or is conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the money needed to pay the taxes.

    2) Fiat Money(2) The second evolution of fiat money is to legislate that the fiat money be accepted for all debts public and private. This effectively creates a discounted market for fiat money that gives it a competitive advantage against other currencies. In turn this allows the state or government to purchase goods and services at a discount by printing money to do so, and then distributing that discount across all holders of money and assets. We call this inflation or credit expansion depending upon how it’s accomplished.

    3) Fiat Money(3)The third evolution of fiat money is to legislate that the fiat money be the ONLY, accepted currency for the payment of debts public and private. This further expands the discount that the state can use to increase purchases of goods and services while distributing the increased costs across all money and asset holders by increasing the amount of money by printing additional money or expanding credit.

    4) Fiat Money(4)The fourth evolution of fiat money is to legislate the elimination of all currency in favor of electronic records, the purpose of which is to eliminate the tax evasion rampant in any cash economy, and therefore to increase the government’s income from it’s least wealthy citizens.

    5) Fiat Money(5) The fifth evolution of fiat money is electronic redistribution of gains from productive efforts, and the elimination of the ability to save, thus creating a monetary slave economy of total dependence that is no different from the totalitarian feudalism of the pharaohs and the early Mesopotamian states.

    Freedom consists in money, property, and the common law under a written constitution that protects money and property and the common law. The only government any population requires is a constitution and the common law, and a body of judges who resolve disputes according to that constitution and common law. Everything else can be privatized, and should be.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-08 09:18:00 UTC

  • CONSULTING COMPANY HIERARCHY VERTICAL AXIS: 6) Strategy Work. ( Presentations on

    CONSULTING COMPANY HIERARCHY

    VERTICAL AXIS:

    6) Strategy Work.

    ( Presentations on Financial, Operational,Market Goals – ie: empirical analysis and planning – big players)

    5) Consulting work

    ( Presentations on initiatives: usually consensus building or research work. )

    4) Project Work

    (deliverables – responsibility for p/l)

    3) Production work

    (many small deliverables)

    2) Outsourcing

    (housing staff under management of customer)

    1) Staffing

    ( recruiting and supplying talent for project work)

    0) Temp

    ( recruiting and supplying talent for short term work)

    HORIZONTAL AXIS

    0) Scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-04 03:50:00 UTC