Curt Doolittle

Form: Question

  • The Cognitive Biases In The Empirical Fields

    THE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) (see  The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations  at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com) What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines? 1) Engineering and engineers 2) Computer science and computer scientists, 3) Economics and economists (statistics) 4) Physics and physicists 5) Mathematics and mathematicians? How would you stack-rank these five by: i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality? ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language. iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people? v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions? ON IQ Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting. DISCLAIMER I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.

  • A Question Of Libertarian Terminology

    (Freedom vs Liberty) Is it just my own selection bias in action, or has the term FREEDOM been sufficiently appropriated as to mean “Positive Freedom and liberty” and LIBERTY such that it currently means “Negative Freedom and liberty”? It’s too bad we LIBERTARIANS don’t have such energetic literary activists who can put together a campaign to ‘reconstruct’ the meanings of liberty and freedom the way the marxists have, and by doing so appropriated our terminology: via editing, shaming and critique. LIBERTY IS DETERMINED BY 1) The available means of production. 2) The impact of the means of production on reproduction (family) 3) The allocation of property rights between individual, family and commons to suit production and reproduction. 4) The Freedoms and Duties we grant each other according to those rights, and the flexibility of altering those relations in response to changes in the means of production. 5) The degree of rent-seeking (corruption) by leaders of the hierarchy or network of organizations that resolve conflicts and facilitate investments (ownership or government). 6) The degree of contribution by individuals willingly paid to the extended family (commons) in exchange for status which increases their opportunities for mating, experience, and opportunity. THE STATUS ECONOMY – THE OTHER INVOLUNTARY APPROPRIATION (Government members obtain status as well as compensation and earners do not obtain status OR compensation. The need is to create status signals such that the earners are willing to contribute to the commons of their extended family. If instead, high tax payers were publicly identified and given political voice, if not political vote, then the world would be a very different place. But politicians fear this fact. And to some degree, the corrupt on both sizes are protected by their anonymity. Imagine a state of the union meeting where the top 500 taxpayers instead of 500 elected politicians, were required to give their opinions on the state of the union. )

  • A Question Of Libertarian Terminology

    (Freedom vs Liberty) Is it just my own selection bias in action, or has the term FREEDOM been sufficiently appropriated as to mean “Positive Freedom and liberty” and LIBERTY such that it currently means “Negative Freedom and liberty”? It’s too bad we LIBERTARIANS don’t have such energetic literary activists who can put together a campaign to ‘reconstruct’ the meanings of liberty and freedom the way the marxists have, and by doing so appropriated our terminology: via editing, shaming and critique. LIBERTY IS DETERMINED BY 1) The available means of production. 2) The impact of the means of production on reproduction (family) 3) The allocation of property rights between individual, family and commons to suit production and reproduction. 4) The Freedoms and Duties we grant each other according to those rights, and the flexibility of altering those relations in response to changes in the means of production. 5) The degree of rent-seeking (corruption) by leaders of the hierarchy or network of organizations that resolve conflicts and facilitate investments (ownership or government). 6) The degree of contribution by individuals willingly paid to the extended family (commons) in exchange for status which increases their opportunities for mating, experience, and opportunity. THE STATUS ECONOMY – THE OTHER INVOLUNTARY APPROPRIATION (Government members obtain status as well as compensation and earners do not obtain status OR compensation. The need is to create status signals such that the earners are willing to contribute to the commons of their extended family. If instead, high tax payers were publicly identified and given political voice, if not political vote, then the world would be a very different place. But politicians fear this fact. And to some degree, the corrupt on both sizes are protected by their anonymity. Imagine a state of the union meeting where the top 500 taxpayers instead of 500 elected politicians, were required to give their opinions on the state of the union. )

  • Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW? Well, that trigger point is empir

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667WHAT IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW?

    Well, that trigger point is empirically possible to determine, but it is not rationally possible to determine.

    Our argument is that these matters of regulation are only determinable by the willingness of an insurer to insure against the action. If it is unprofitable to insure against the action, then it is likely something we should just prohibit. If it is easy to insure against, then it is something we should leave alone.

    There is no alternative ratio-empirical means by which a monopoly can make such a determination. We have a very, very bad record of deciding what should and should not be ‘permitted’.

    Secondly, the high trust society is predicated on NOT defining laws that limit behavior, in the french and german style (napoleonic law), and instead, in anglo-scandinavian style, anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted (the common law).

    These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical questions. And the empirical means of measuring behavior is the willingness and ability to insure against it.

    That is, after all, what a government does: it functions as an insurer of last resort. But that the insurer should be the last resort, is very different from whether that insurer of last resort should be a monopoly.

    your question, as it is stated, implies that the state, and reason, and monopoly, are superior to private agency, empirical measurement, and demonstrated evidence. Including demonstrated willingness to risk, as demonstrated evidence of the truth of one’s statements.

    This is both rationally and empirically a damning criticism of law, state, and and moral philosophy as anti-scientific.

    But you know, i’ve been working on this problem for something like forty years and I am not terribly optimistic about convincing a lot of people – especially given the academic preference for anti-rational, anti-scientific. postmodern mysticism. 🙂

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667#comment-308273

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:30:00 UTC

  • WHY DOESN’T IT OCCUR TO US THAT WE DON’T NEED A SINGLE, MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT? I m

    WHY DOESN’T IT OCCUR TO US THAT WE DON’T NEED A SINGLE, MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT?

    I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons.

    Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same.

    The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government.

    But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company.

    The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 10:09:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: Why don’t we call ‘liberty’ what it is? “ARISTOCRACY” “Western Aristoc

    QUESTION:

    Why don’t we call ‘liberty’ what it is? “ARISTOCRACY”

    “Western Aristocratic, Egalitarian, Propertarianism”

    Those who CREATE the institution of property, earn the RIGHT of property.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 06:49:00 UTC