Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • THE META ETHICS OF EUROPA 1) Man’s purpose is to leave the world better than he

    THE META ETHICS OF EUROPA

    1) Man’s purpose is to leave the world better than he entered it.

    2) Man’s purpose is to bend nature to our will.

    3) Man’s purpose is to question everything.

    OR HEGEL’S VERSION

    –“The principle of the European mind is self-conscious Reason which is

    confi dent that for it there can be no insuperable barrier and which therefore

    takes an interest in everything in order to become present to itself

    therein…In Europe, therefore, there prevails this infinite thirst for

    knowledge…The European is interested in the world, he wants to know it,

    to make this Other confronting him his own, to bring to view the genus,

    law, universal, thought, the inner rationality, in the particular forms of

    the world. As in the theoretical, so too in the practical, the European

    mind…subdues the outer world to its ends with an energy which has

    ensured for it the mastery of the world. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 14:55:00 UTC

  • Which Philosophers Rely On Which Argumentative Method?

    How much longer will we leave ethics to philosophical pseudoscience? ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    1. Mythical (Allegorical) (Theological)
    2. Psychological (Moral) (The Anglo Scottish Enlightenment)
    3. Rational (Kantian) (Germanic Libertarians)
    4. Historical (analogical)
    5. Empirical (positivist)
    6. Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
    7. Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    See Degrees Of Political ArgumentQUESTION: Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods? (I can tell you that I rely upon ratio-empirical arguments.)

  • Which Philosophers Rely On Which Argumentative Method?

    How much longer will we leave ethics to philosophical pseudoscience? ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    1. Mythical (Allegorical) (Theological)
    2. Psychological (Moral) (The Anglo Scottish Enlightenment)
    3. Rational (Kantian) (Germanic Libertarians)
    4. Historical (analogical)
    5. Empirical (positivist)
    6. Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
    7. Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    See Degrees Of Political ArgumentQUESTION: Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods? (I can tell you that I rely upon ratio-empirical arguments.)

  • REPOSITIONING HOPPE 1) “The failures of Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Argu

    REPOSITIONING HOPPE

    1) “The failures of Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Argumentation to withstand rational and scientific criticism do not diminish Hoppe’s solutions to the problems of democracy, monopoly bureaucracy, and the private production of public goods.”

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-20 11:47:00 UTC

  • REPOSITIONING ROTHBARD 1) “Rothbard was a great historian but a terrible philoso

    REPOSITIONING ROTHBARD

    1) “Rothbard was a great historian but a terrible philosopher.”

    2) “Property evolved first as a means of preventing free riding, second as a means of inheritance, and only last as a necessary institution for the division of knowledge and labor..”

    3) “We can still use the NAP, but we must redefine property such that it reflects human moral instincts: as an ongoing preventino of free riding by every creative means that come up with”

    (More to come)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-20 11:36:00 UTC

  • SYNONYMS ACROSS DISCIPLINES: BUT IT’S ALL JUST THEFT Murder, violence, destructi

    SYNONYMS ACROSS DISCIPLINES: BUT IT’S ALL JUST THEFT

    Murder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft. the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use.

    Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

    1) In legal terms resolvable under the common law, the word we use for involuntary transfer is ‘theft’. That is the most general categorical name we have available to us.

    2) Now, the PROBLEM that arises with cooperation is called ‘free riding’. The “problem of free riding’ is how it is discussed in the literature. In the context of social science, and in the context of economics, the term ‘free riding’ refers to that category of involuntary transfers (thefts).

    3) In moral philosophy we must identify first causes. I have borrowed the term ‘involuntary transfer’ from law, in which title is forcibly transferred by the state without consent of its owner. This was the most general and unloaded term I could find. (I should note that Jan Lester uses ‘forced costs” or something of that nature, for the same purpose.)

    I do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law).

    However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 03:46:00 UTC

  • JUSTIFICATION VS EXPLANATION (ethics) 1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both

    JUSTIFICATION VS EXPLANATION

    (ethics)

    1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both private property, and private theft by deception and parasitism.

    2) Public Choice Theory (Social Democracy) : How to justify public theft by pseudoscience and parasitism.

    3) Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalism : How to justify private property, and eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and the state.

    4) Aristocratic Egalitarianism : How to resolve all *possible* conflicts via the common law, and eliminate all demand for the state – no justification is needed.

    All I did was base Hoppe’s deductions made from Argumentation on science and reason, rather than pseudoscience (praxeology) and rationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 11:06:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS Mythical (Allegorical) Psychological (Moral) Rational (Kan

    ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    Mythical (Allegorical)

    Psychological (Moral)

    Rational (Kantian)

    Historical ( analogical)

    Empirical (positivist)

    Ratio-empirical ( scientific )

    Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    QUESTION:

    Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 12:06:00 UTC

  • More On The Axiomatic (consistent) Vs Theoretic (correspondent)

    [A]xiomatic vs Theoretic 1 – axiomatic (independent of action and observation) versus theoretic (action and observation) a) Axiomatic systems allow us to make statements independent of any correspondence with reality. b) Theoretical systems require us to make statements dependent upon correspondence with reality. c) It is universally possible to create axiomatic systems by copying theoretical statements. d) But it is not universally possible to create theoretical statements by copying axiomatic statements. 2 – Testing against our perception in an empirical test. Not a logical one. If economic statements are reduced to human actions which we can observe, then we are not in fact making a logical test, but an empirical one. 3 – What separates economics from the other sciences, (where science means observation) is that we can sense and perceive changes in state without the use of instrumentation. That does not mean that because we do not require instrumentation, we are not making observations. Introspection is still observation. Our statements are not logical, they are empirical because they are based upon that form of observation we call introspection. 4 – Praxeology, if it’s a science, cannot depend on axiomatic statements since sciences are not axiomatically based, but theoretically based. But if we claim it is axiomatic then it does not require observation and if it does not require observation than must include a prohibition on introspection as a means of testing, and that all such tests are truth or false independent of our sense perception. 5 – metaphysics states that reality is deterministic or knowledge of the universe is impossible. This stipulation required prior theory or axiom. Reason is impossible without it. We must assume regularity of the universe, even if we tend to construct history in retrospect for our ease of use. BACKWARDS [M]ises got it backwards. Economics is an observational science which we have the power of introspection to test. We can, from those observations both introspective and external, We can test the rationality of any statement (it’s truth content) but we cannot deduce much of anything from it. Because complex properties of action are emergent and impossible to forecast. Kant was an intellectual criminal, and the continental and cosmopolitan schools have done nothing to help us eliminate obscurantism and pseudoscience favored by the left. In fact, All the triumvirate have seemed to want to do is create yet another pseudoscience. I can’t save Hoppe unless I can fix this problem. Otherwise our movement is done when he is. Either we reform this nonsense, or libertarianism dies as a continental and cosmopolitan pseudosciences like the rest of the 20th century pseudosciences, or we convert libertarian language from the pseudoscientific to the scientific. Science won. Cognitive science, experimental psychology, and empirical economics have provided all the insights. Meanwhile we’ve spent thirty to forty years now masturbating with a pseudoscience only an autistic moron could possibly fall for. Time for libertarians to grow up. If you can’t answer my objections above, with statements of human action you’re just a sucker for pseudoscience. Because that’s what Praxeology is. It doesn’t have to be. But that’s what it is. LIBERTARIANS OUGHT TO STUDY MORE THAN “SCRIPTURE”. Because while knowledgable about economics, libertarians tend to be absolutely ignorant of anything outside the approved canon. I gain more understanding of the autistic nature of libertarians every day. Even though I’m one of them. I see that the lack of empathic comprehension applies to all disciplines. Time to grow up kiddies.

  • More On The Axiomatic (consistent) Vs Theoretic (correspondent)

    [A]xiomatic vs Theoretic 1 – axiomatic (independent of action and observation) versus theoretic (action and observation) a) Axiomatic systems allow us to make statements independent of any correspondence with reality. b) Theoretical systems require us to make statements dependent upon correspondence with reality. c) It is universally possible to create axiomatic systems by copying theoretical statements. d) But it is not universally possible to create theoretical statements by copying axiomatic statements. 2 – Testing against our perception in an empirical test. Not a logical one. If economic statements are reduced to human actions which we can observe, then we are not in fact making a logical test, but an empirical one. 3 – What separates economics from the other sciences, (where science means observation) is that we can sense and perceive changes in state without the use of instrumentation. That does not mean that because we do not require instrumentation, we are not making observations. Introspection is still observation. Our statements are not logical, they are empirical because they are based upon that form of observation we call introspection. 4 – Praxeology, if it’s a science, cannot depend on axiomatic statements since sciences are not axiomatically based, but theoretically based. But if we claim it is axiomatic then it does not require observation and if it does not require observation than must include a prohibition on introspection as a means of testing, and that all such tests are truth or false independent of our sense perception. 5 – metaphysics states that reality is deterministic or knowledge of the universe is impossible. This stipulation required prior theory or axiom. Reason is impossible without it. We must assume regularity of the universe, even if we tend to construct history in retrospect for our ease of use. BACKWARDS [M]ises got it backwards. Economics is an observational science which we have the power of introspection to test. We can, from those observations both introspective and external, We can test the rationality of any statement (it’s truth content) but we cannot deduce much of anything from it. Because complex properties of action are emergent and impossible to forecast. Kant was an intellectual criminal, and the continental and cosmopolitan schools have done nothing to help us eliminate obscurantism and pseudoscience favored by the left. In fact, All the triumvirate have seemed to want to do is create yet another pseudoscience. I can’t save Hoppe unless I can fix this problem. Otherwise our movement is done when he is. Either we reform this nonsense, or libertarianism dies as a continental and cosmopolitan pseudosciences like the rest of the 20th century pseudosciences, or we convert libertarian language from the pseudoscientific to the scientific. Science won. Cognitive science, experimental psychology, and empirical economics have provided all the insights. Meanwhile we’ve spent thirty to forty years now masturbating with a pseudoscience only an autistic moron could possibly fall for. Time for libertarians to grow up. If you can’t answer my objections above, with statements of human action you’re just a sucker for pseudoscience. Because that’s what Praxeology is. It doesn’t have to be. But that’s what it is. LIBERTARIANS OUGHT TO STUDY MORE THAN “SCRIPTURE”. Because while knowledgable about economics, libertarians tend to be absolutely ignorant of anything outside the approved canon. I gain more understanding of the autistic nature of libertarians every day. Even though I’m one of them. I see that the lack of empathic comprehension applies to all disciplines. Time to grow up kiddies.