Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post) (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds

    (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post)

    (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds” …. yes, that says it all.

    (2) Different kinds of minds value different means and ends. (Conversely, ‘we all need to think like this’ is an effort to create a monopoly in values where we need a market in values)

    (3) The world needs all kinds of disciplines(means and ends) for those minds to specialize in.

    (4) The world needs multiple economic models (production consumption) to provide opportunities for different minds – specialized and not.

    (5)The world needs multiple political models (commons construction) that vary according to the distribution of those minds – some with a bias toward collective production (early stage societies) and some with a bias toward voluntary commons production (late stage societies),

    (6) The world needs multiple countries/nation-states (markets) for the same reason.

    HOWEVER – these are all ‘positiva’ assertions by which search for opportunities of all kinds. How is cooperation possible between so many diverse forms of inquiry, choice, and production of generations, goods, services, information and commons? These are the ‘negativa’ propositions:

    (6) The world needs one language – one that corresponds most highly with truth, thereby reducing ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. That language is TRUTH and the language of truth is science.

    7) the world needs one method of decidability in matters of conflict between these diverse polities – equally expressed in the language of truth. That method of decidability is non-imposition of costs against property in toto – that which we call ‘natural law’.

    9) And the world needs one method of decidability between preferences(policy): not to sink into dysgenia – which is the natural outcome of all orders that are not explicitly eugenic (west and east), and to transcend the beast man (which is the natural outcome of all orders that are explicitly eugenic.).

    This sequence provides decidability for the full scope of the initial proposition, from the individual to mankind.

    We can create a market for the positive that we do not know is good, by eliminating the market for that which we do know is bad: that which impedes individual opportunity, productive cooperation, and human transcendence.

    The more trial and error the better as long as one is risking (gambling) with his own purse.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:58:00 UTC

  • MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt.. It’s all very well what Grandin

    MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt..

    It’s all very well what Grandin adumbrates but what about people who are visual/spacial, pattern recognizers, AND verbal?

    If someone asks me what I do I usually say I’m a ‘specialist’ because I find something (or two or three things)…build joy for it through specialisation, then do it for many hours a day and make it my life until the improvements diminish. And then onto the next thing. After doing that for a decade or two things kind of flow together and learning new things becomes so easy and quick. Or so it seems in relative terms.

    Someone once asked

    — “What do you specialize in?” —

    And I said

    — ‘Everything.’ —

    They were obviously baffled (although in retrospect, of course, ‘everything’ is technically inaccurate).

    For me these range from artistic (architecture/design) to coordination (combat/sport) to visual/spacial (mapping/[games such as] Go) to verbal (learning the dictionary definition of thousands of words/imitating people’s voices) to pattern recognition (pure maths/coding/chess) to a combination of them in different forms (poker/business/connecting people/project managing/conferences).

    For me, to do any one of these without the others would be holding back expansive nourishment from a ravenous mind – a form of torture.

    Then you get the people with 2 of the three like you (and my best friend from school Sir Edward Townes) – visual/spacial and pattern recognizing. If you are a 10/10 in the abstraction pattern field and 9.5/10 in the visual/spacial the Ed is t’other way around. He can visualize things beyond anyone I have encountered – I am training every day but WAY behind.

    So I suppose my question really is do you not feel like you’re starving your verbal mind by not spending years becoming a writer like Joseph Conrad (who was also ‘autistic’ in the visual/spacial [he was a captain of a ship] and verbal) or H.L.Mencken? And a speaker? You come across well in interviews but I think more practice and a few years could make you a 3/3 trifecta polymath.

    Am I wrong?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:32:00 UTC

  • wow. no one ever called us marxists before. lol Fascists, yes. Marxists no. 1) y

    wow. no one ever called us marxists before. lol Fascists, yes. Marxists no.

    1) you will find that the OP is historically correct.

    you are projecting your ideology into an historical statement.

    while the law recognizes property, it also recognizes commons.

    the expansion of private property as a right rather than as a privilege (Freemen vs Slaves) evolved as the OP suggests.

    2) Pure jewish bullshit: that society self organizes into peaceful cooperation. When society self organizes into peaceful cooperation in an equilibrium with aggression in all forms: criminal, unethical, and immoral. And that the common law and religion both evolved for the single purpose of suppressing retaliation cycles by providing the neutrality of a third party insurer that proxied enforcement, as populations increased, and familial and tribal differences needed to be neutralized.

    3) –“I wouldn’t require a large group”–

    (a) you are irrelevant. Given that the high trust society is unique to west, and particularly to the north west (because of heavy crime enforcement, manorialism, earlier selection pressures), the evidence is that large enough groups cannot form reliably enough to suppress criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. In fact it appears that the participation of nearly the entire community is required. but without both law and specialized enforcement, no condition of subsidy, freedom, or liberty can be constructed (logically and empirically). (b)You cannot reliably self-report such a thing. If you hold the positions you do it’s implied you would be lest trustworthy in matters of risk, and more likely to free ride upon commons (which is really what you’re advocating, because that is what jewish libertinism advocates: separatism as a means of free riding upon the commons.)

    4) —“sovereign group”—

    This is a grammatical error you are nitpicking. But yes, a group of soverigns is possible while a sovereign group is logically impossible. However, this grammatical error aside the rest of the argument stands. A group of sovereigns in the west were responsible for the formation of polities that led to high trust polities.

    5) –“hierarchies”–

    Only a liar or a fool conflates the demonstrably universally existential hierarchy of classes and the individuals within classes with the rule of law (equality under the law). In all aspects of life: genetic, associative, reproductive (mating), productive (business), social, and political, these hierarchies are demonstrated without exception – and there is precious little rotation in and out of underclass, working class, and middle class, with most of the upper classes rotating in and out of the middle class as exceptions. Those families that maintain aristocracy over many generations do so through reproductive selection as a means of preservation of assets.

    6) —“These are actions and not necessarily designated groups.”—

    Now you are just moving from grammatical nits to outright lies. Coups are possible by police and military, and resistance to revolution and coup is not possible without the assistance of police and military. Ergo, police and military rule. They, and we, profit most from the promise of rapid and thorough action, without having to ever act.

    7) —“violence”—

    Violence in and of itself is a neutral asset. That asset can be put to moral or immoral ends. Just as wealth is a neutral asset. It can be put to moral or immoral ends. Just as knowledge is a neutral asset, it can be put to moral or immoral ends. For example, if we are successful in defending the informational commons just as we have been successful in the suppression of murder, harm, theft, fraud, and conspiracy, then we would greatly reduce the number of (stupid, immoral) bad ideas that are commonly propagated – like marxist socialism, straussian neoconservatism, and rothbardian libertinism.

    The rest of your responses above is just more dishonesty. Which is what we expect from dishonest people. We know now that some groups are predisposed to lying the same way that women are predisposed to lying ‘in their way’, and for the same reason: they have, through group selection, inverted the reproductive strategies of the genders.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-10 08:10:00 UTC

  • “The concept of individual property rights was constructed by the bourgeoisie/or

    —“The concept of individual property rights was constructed by the bourgeoisie/organizing-class as justification for permission from monarchs to seek opportunities (initially at the great expense of the aristocracy, and later at the expense of the commons).

    The concept of human rights was constructed (post-war) as marketing to the decolonized ‘developing world,’ as a means of seeking allies against the threat of communism.

    The problem, in both cases, is that we believe our own propaganda.”—James Augustus Berens

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 19:05:00 UTC

  • “I’ve read enough of your text to brand you a promotor of a “new” governmental r

    —“I’ve read enough of your text to brand you a promotor of a “new” governmental rule which bridge s the gap between authoritarianism and a classic monarchy.”—

    No, it restores and extends both (a) monarchy (houses for each class), and (b) rule of natural law by (c) restoring markets and replacing majority assent with default assent and universal legal dissent.

    As a tongue in cheek bit of humor I’ve also labelled it “market fascism”, which, while a contradiction in terms, draws attention to the fact that if we grant protection to the informational commons, it’s actually impossible to legally criticize this form of government – although entirely possible to criticize actions within it.

    –“You didn’t actually create Propertarianism itself,”–

    Yes the TERM was extant but almost never used. And the concept of the ‘reduction of all rights to statements of property rights’ existed. And that is why, at the time, i also registered ‘propertarians.com’ and created a site at that address to show the sequence from stoics > locke > rothbard > hoppe > doolittle to demonstrate how long it had taken to solve the problem of a category of commensurability in social science like we had created with prices more narrowly in economics. I abandoned that project because of the effort to create that particular narrative, and because I no longer wanted to be associated with Rothbard because of his ghetto(levantine) ethics.

    I created that set of ideas I’ve called ‘Propertarianism’, and I intentionally used the term (which was derogatory). We debated quite a bit about continuing to use it once we discovered testimonialism in epistemology, and again when we Sovereignty was the cause of western civilization, but by then the brand had stuck. So I went with the advice of retaining Propertarianism.

    My insights into the Propertarian concept can be reduced (largely) to (1) demonstrated property: “Property in Toto”, and the subsequent demonstration that Moral Foundations Theory can be restated as property rights – thereby explaining our varying moral intuitions about the distribution of interests in ‘property’; and (2) that those interests function as a distribution of perceptual, cognitive, knowledge, advocacy, and labor. There are other insights but these are the two most important. (3) And that as I’d originally intended, it was possible to restate in scientific terms Hoppe’s (tragic) use of kantian justificationary rationalism, and Rothbard’s use of Jewish (immoral) law and the technique of “Pilpul”, and Mises (tragic) failure to understand his discovery of economic ‘intuitionism’/’operationalism’ and instead creating a pseudoscience – and in doing so ‘complete’ the promise of the propertarian method, thereby ‘completing’ the creation of a universal method of commensurability in social science.

    There are a few dozen of these insights that arise as a consequence, but these are the the primary ones that the rest derive from.

    Today I use the term Propertarianism to refer to the entire framework of The Laws of Nature – which is the correct descriptive name of the project, and what i will publish under.

    It includes:

    1 – Metaphysics of Action

    2 – Testimonial Truth – the completion of the scientific method.

    3 – Propertarian Ethics – the completion of ethical commensurability

    4 – the natural law of sovereignty

    5 – market government under natural law of sovereignty

    6 – group evolutionary strategy (group competition)

    7 – A restatement of psychology, sociology, politics, and group evolutionary startegy in propertarian terms.

    8 – Aesthetics (Truth, Beauty, and Commons[goodness] )

    You might note that the statistical anomaly in my writing is the word ‘commons’ and that I focus on creating commons and normative commons, and high trust normative commons in particular as the competitive strategy of western civilization.

    –IQ—

    Well I don’t make that claim right? I state (often) that demonstrated intelligence consists of at least four categories, one of which is ‘wants’, and that as far as I can tell, after 140 or so it’s more a matter of effort and time than intelligence. And that in practice, success (and wealth) is more an effort of character than of ability. And that, demonstrably, most wealth is created by the middle class (people of slightly above average intelligence) because most wealth is created by the construction and sale of small and medium businesses.

    Creating concepts is however, fairly rare. There are not too many of them in history (See both Murray and Adler). And in my experience, I’ve spent most of my life on this problem – although I worked nearly full time on it for only about ten years.

    That seems to be what all the data indicates: it takes about a decade to master a field sufficiently to provide an insight into it.

    — foe —

    Sorry man. In the end, violence and truth rule over parasitism, excuse making and gossip. You and yours have only liberty by permission. It’s our permission. It’s revokable. Why? Because you and yours have always failed. Because while you can master gossip and ridicule like women, you cannot climb the ladder to truth and violence.

    You industrialized lying. And you’re just another parasitic liar.

    And we are, within the next few decades going to use that violence and truth and law to impose violence upon those who industrialized, and continue to practice, lying.

    Man is too important a creature to leave to undomesticated animals that must lie and succor upon others to survive.

    😉

    http://selfadoration.com/cold-blooded-vengeance-exposing-curt-doolittles-and-libertarianisms-inner-thug/8159#comment-9960

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 07:51:00 UTC

  • RT @HbdNrx: This was great stuff for helping Europe become less clannish. Now we

    RT @HbdNrx: This was great stuff for helping Europe become less clannish. Now we’ve gone too far and need the opposite. https://t.co/XxPF0y…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 13:07:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817719411624833024

  • Albeit, your rhetorical fallacies are less rudimentary, you engage in them every

    …. Albeit, your rhetorical fallacies are less rudimentary, you engage in them every single day, just as the left does.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 13:04:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817718647573581824

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817635751026458624

    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/817635751026458624

  • I think you would get slaughtered if you did more than ‘the basics of argument’.

    I think you would get slaughtered if you did more than ‘the basics of argument’.Because you often engage in fallacy yourself

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 13:03:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817718426059898881

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817635751026458624

    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/817635751026458624

  • Peter (all), (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd) RE

    Peter (all),

    (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd)

    RE: https://www.facebook.com/peter.boettke/posts/10158213805095389

    IT’S NOT A CASE OF MISINTERPRETATION BUT MISREPRESENTATION, AND IGNORANCE

    There is a difference between:

    (a) misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

    (b) monopoly/authoritarianism(subjective/apriorism/operationalism vs objective/existential/empiricism) and competition(survival from criticism in both apriorism and empiricism)

    (c) scientists(survival from criticism) and ideologues (justificationism as in misesian/rothbardians)

    ASSERTION

    Any and every statement of social science proposed as a truth claim must survive the following forms of criticism, of which AUSTRIAN economist’s operationalism/intuitionism (misnamed ‘methodological individualism’) provides the first INNOVATION in science in over a century.

    1) categorical consistency (identity – non conflation)

    2) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    3) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    4) existential consistency (operational language/intuitionism/methodological individualism)

    5) reciprocal consistency (objectively moral: productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities)

    6) scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes the difference in opportunity costs: the seen, unseen / intended, unintended / caused, uncaused.)

    That completes the scientific method.

    When a mainstream quantitative (correlative) economist issues his findings, in almost NO case does he test (4)(5)(6), and arguably they rarely test (1). In other words, most mainstream (correlative) economists cherry-pick in order to defend priors and desired measures.

    We succeed at what we measure. We fail at what we don’t.

    WHO IS AT FAULT

    1) The Mises Institute has polluted the informational commons for 30 years, if for no other reason than they are philosophically sophomoric to the last man. Their propagandizing by making innovative use of the internet to capture interest has created large numbers of activists who lack breadth of knowledge necessary to judge (test) the ideology they absorb.

    2) While the Christian Austrians (austrians proper) maintained a metaphysical (subconscious) accounting of the challenge of organizing the commons (an aristocratic bias), many if not all of the Cosmopolitan Austrians (jewish Austrians), like the Rousseau, ignored the cost of organizing the commons, under the pretense that man was oppressed – rather than domesticated by the aristocracy (like any other animal) through the use of war, governance, law, and policy. Yes, domesticating man was profitable. It continues to be. That does not mean man was oppressed if it means forcing him into the market and to respect life, liberty, and property.

    3) Academic Practitioners of operationalism / intuitionism / methodological-individualism AND empirical observation are almost equally philosophically sophomoric in their understanding of the innovation of the Austrian method, as the first instance of operationalism/intuitionism discovered in ANY of the sciences.

    This is because (a) philosophers were distracted by the pseudoscientific effort of trying to make analytic philosophy of language into a ‘science’. (b) Popper/Kuhn failed to complete the scientific method sufficiently to explain why it worked so successfully, and therefore how to apply it to adaptive systems (social science), and while Hayek correctly identified information as the model we should study in social science, and correctly identified the common natural law as the means of regulating that information, he failed to learn from Simmel, Weber and Mises, as well as Brouwer and Bridgman how the scientific method could be captured in law and used to regulate that information. (c) the Incentive to take advantage of fiat currency (stock in the state’s revenue and income potential) was so great that economists were as equally distracted by the use of it to obtain legitimacy and influence as were philosophers distracted by the philosophy of language to obtain legitimacy and influence.

    WHY DOES AUSTRIAN ECON MATTER?

    1) because operationalism is more important in social science than physical science, and physical science more important than in mathematics, for the simple reason that the difference between the methods of observation and survival (proof/test/criticism) are trivial in mathematics, limited in physical science, and expansive in social and cognitive science.

    2) because Austrians discovered operationalism in economics where it is most important of all sciences other than perhaps psychology.

    3) because by discovering operationalism in economics, Austrians largely completed the scientific method – despite failing to grasp that they had done so.

    KNOWING THIS, HOW DO WE REPOSITION AUSTRIAN ECON?

    1) By using both empirical and operational methods, Austrian econ’s are engaged in social science: the study of human cooperation those markets for reproduction, production of private goods and services and information, production of common goods, services, and information, and production of competition against other groups (group evolutionary strategy). THEY PRACTICE SCIENCE.

    2) By attempting to correct accumulated misinformation in the economy and assist networks of sustainable specialization and trade in adaptation, Chicago (freshwater) economists are attempting to (a)remain within rule of natural law (social science) and preserving the individual’s (b) ability to forecast and plan, (c) protection from retroactive legislation (policy) required by natural law. THEY PRACTICE MORAL SCIENCE.

    3) By attempting to maximize consumption, mainstream economists ignore social science, violate natural law, and insert disinformation into the economy to the point where disinformation and malincentives accumulate on longer time horizons at greater scale, than individuals, organizations, the economy, the nation, and the civilization can adapt to. THEY PRACTICE DECEITFUL, IMMORAL, PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    WHERE CAN YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT AUSTRIAN ECON’S PLACE IN HISTORY?

    This post contains pointers to a series of articles that position Menger/Mises and their discovery in intellectual history as part of the movement of late 19th and early 20th century that failed, and allowed us to be subject to 100 years of social pseudoscience.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 09:54:00 UTC

  • Well done

    Well done.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-06 19:30:00 UTC