Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • (MaxSpeak) I’ll try to clarify MaxSpeak’s point: Physicists do not know the firs

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/economists-dont-have-physics-envy.htmlNoah, (MaxSpeak)

    I’ll try to clarify MaxSpeak’s point:

    Physicists do not know the first principles of the physical world, but they can usually construct operational proofs using mathematics – just as we can in mathematics construct proofs that at least test their hypothesis. This is because the universe can’t ‘choose’ to remain out of balance.

    Even such, scientists still write in in operational language, with operational definitions, to illustrate that they are not adding information (bias) into their arguments.

    But in economics, not only is the purpose of human though expressly to place the world out of balance so that we can capture the difference for our use, we DO know the first principles of human behavior – and each of us is an excellent subjective and sympathetic test of each and every rational decision in a transformational sequence.

    Yet we do not demand ‘proofs’ in economics as we do in the physical sciences, mathematics or logic. A proof is not a justification. It is a form of criticism. It tells us that something *can* be operationally constructed, and therefore can exist.

    If one cannot construct a bottom up (operational) proof, one cannot prove one’s phenomenon is existentially possible, and free of subjectively added information (bias).

    The operational movements were successful in physics (Bridgman/Operationalism), mathematics (Hilbert and Brouwer/Intuitionism), and in psychology (various/Operationism). But in economics this movement failed (Mises/Praxeology).

    One cannot warranty that an economic theory is true if one has not warrantied that it is operationally possible for humans to perform.

    As such the sequence of theories (at least at the macro level) are self justifying, rather than critical (scientific) and well criticized.

    At some point in the future Hayek’s prediction that the 20th century would be remembered as an era of mysticism (pseudoscience) in the social sciences will be common knowledge.

    These subjects are non trivial, but MaxSpeak has touched on the central problem: once you assume the virtue of full employment the rest is just justification.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/economists-dont-have-physics-envy.html?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-14 02:29:00 UTC

  • Lick your prey before you kill and eat it? šŸ˜‰

    Lick your prey before you kill and eat it? šŸ˜‰

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:34:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/597711422685093888

    Reply addressees: @sarahdoingthing @xmjEE @vgr

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/597540080949923840

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable ā€” 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/597540080949923840

  • is an illogical question. How do you “Fast” the color “Green”. It makes no sense

    http://www.quora.com/How-do-you-enterprise-capitalism/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1This is an illogical question. How do you “Fast” the color “Green”. It makes no sense. Capitalism is the voluntary organization of production through the use of private property, contract, law, money, prices, accounting, and interest. And the use of and reward for use of resources is allocated to those who most satisfy the demand for those resources by the information provided by prices.

    An enterprise is voluntary organization of capital (time, people, money, assets) among individuals in order to construct an hypothesis that might produce a profit on the use of that capital – if their hypothesis is correct.

    An enterprise requires capital.

    Aside from that the question is nonsensical.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 10:50:00 UTC

  • MY JOB AS A PHILOSOPHER. YOUR JOB AS ADVOCATE. Johannes writes: —“…negativit

    MY JOB AS A PHILOSOPHER. YOUR JOB AS ADVOCATE.

    Johannes writes:

    —“…negativity (and negative definitions) are useful only for so long…”—

    Yeah… I get it though.

    I usually say “Arguments against something are not arguments in favor of something.” To act, we need something to act in favor of: a solution.

    **I’m arguing in favor of the positive expression as property rights, of the negative prohibition against parasitism, for the purpose of constructing a post-democratic political order, in which we conduct personal (private) and political (commons) exchanges,, that are mutually desired, mutually productive and free of parasitism. In effect, Im advocating moral government.***

    I just didn’t realize when I started out that I was going to fix a 2500 year old problem in philosophy: what does truth mean, and what is this problem of epistemology? I spent the first part of 2013 trying to figure out if I had to solve these problems or not, and it has taken me two additional years of work to do so.

    My original hypothesis on the structure of moral government hasn’t changed. My ability to articulate the necessity of such a thing, and to defend it has changed. And that is largely due to solving (completing) the failed or incomplete Operational project of the 20th century. And by consequence, gaining an understanding of the vast conspiracy of deceit conducted by the left, and the total failure of the right to develop a scientific statement of its position.

    The reason the right has failed is democracy is predicated on the assumption that all want to join the aristocracy: an equalitarian of aristocracy of everyone. This is demonstrably false. We see that the world cannot bear meritocracy. It only lightly bears truth. And whenever possible people preserve all the cheating that is possible: it is so much easier that providing material value.

    I know what I must do first, and that is a bit of science. I am working on the science. Meaning: the truthful expression of philosophy, including metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. One can write popular science only after the science is done. And all science is negative. All true statements are prohibitive. All utilitarian, and therefore theoretical statements are positive. Evolution helped us act, but it did not prepare us for science. As such truth is often counter-intuitive.

    That is one of the revolutions we just went through.

    Anyway. To save the west requires science, solution, advocacy in that order. My job is the science and solution. And everyone else’s job is advocacy.Roman is very adamant. And I’m sticking with his advice.

    Philosophers invent, teachers teach, students implement, everyone else responds.

    I’m doing my job. And i’m doing it with TRANSPARENCY, right out in the open like craftsman on the street – for all who are interested to see.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 05:15:00 UTC

  • (James Santagata corrects me.) My argument was this: that consumers provide an e

    (James Santagata corrects me.)

    My argument was this: that consumers provide an exceptional means of low cost R&D because they make small investments at low transaction costs. However, the ‘big money’ outside of advertising (gambling) is still in the enterprise customer. That is because the switching costs for consumers is low, and the switching cost for the enterprise is high.

    It has taken a long time for hurricane caused by the justice department’s flapping of butterfly wings to dissipate, but it’s clear that it’s dissipating and that massive consolidation will be possible.

    Why? because owning customer relationships and the curatorial influence of brand has been suppressed for a decade. And I see a peak over there on the horizon.

    The accumulated value of prior generatoins anchored past customer-owners. That anchor has dissipated also.

    More later.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 09:12:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere)(libertine idiots) HHH; Listen “Doolittle” (or whatever your rea

    (from elsewhere)(libertine idiots)

    HHH;

    Listen “Doolittle” (or whatever your real name is), I suggest you listen to your superiors. I have learned nothing from your insipid comments. Know your place in line peasant.

    Curt Doolittle:

    lol. You will find no Libertarian philosopher able to debate me. Hans included. (I know this.) I have no superiors in political philosophy. I desperately seek mere equals. It’s my real name. And my family has been in the lesser aristocracy for recorded northern European history back to the eleventh century.

    And yes I am taunting you for your insipid criticism.

    Curt Doolittle

    BTW: Hoppe never advocates violence. Ever. He recommends nothing more radical than homeowner’s agreements commonly do, but that such prohibitions are unlimited: any reason for ostracization at all. He states that if people must be physically removed from an area, that this is also a choice. Removal, ostracization, and boycott are not the same as causing physical harm or depriving one of property or engaging in fraud, or any other form of parasitism. It prevents individuals from gaining the benefit of participation in a partnership(contract) without paying the requisite behavioral costs of membership in that partnership (contract).

    Misrepresenting Hoppe is easy. Most criticisms of hist work are nonsensical or trivial errors in understanding the properties of his terminology.

    Rather than such trivialities, his errors are limited to fairly deep philosophical problems caused by (a) his justificationary dependence upon kantian apriorism, and his failure to convert his arguments from aprioristic, justificationary and rationalist, to theoretical, critical and scientific; and (b) his failure to identify that property is a positive assertion of a negative prohibition (parasitism) necessary for the rational choice of cooperation over predation – and that the creative application of philosophy he is most proud of (argumentation) is a mere legalism (justifcation), not one of rational choice (incentives). That this is a contradiction seems to have escaped him. He assumes too much of man. The only means by which we can eliminate the state is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, the common law must provide means of resolving conflict arising from all forms of parasitism that humans seek to retaliate against. By adopting argumentation and intersubjectively verifiable property, he justifies levantine low trust ethics which demonstrably increase demand for the state. Instead, to eliminate demand for the state, requires a the total prohibition on the imposition of costs (parasitism) and the alleviation of all means of conflict over which we retaliate. This produces the high trust society, the civic society, and the maximum possible economic velocity for any polity because it disallows all possible parasitism whether private or public. Hayek didn’t quite figure it out, even if he understood that the organic common law and a constitution enumerating property rights, was necessary for the construction of liberty.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-06 12:26:00 UTC

  • Agreed

    Agreed.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 18:30:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/595656720963260416

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/593944551556915201

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable ā€” 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/593944551556915201

  • Thanks for this. šŸ™‚ At some point I will try to do a better job than Deb Mayo in

    Thanks for this. šŸ™‚ At some point I will try to do a better job than Deb Mayo in reconciling Peirce and Popper.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 18:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/595656510337855490

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/593943552884805634

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable ā€” 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/593943552884805634

  • My @Quora answer to What dictionary does OS X’s built in dictionary get words fr

    My @Quora answer to What dictionary does OS X’s built in dictionary get words from, and how can I report errors in iā€¦ http://qr.ae/LbURH

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 08:21:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/590792624593829888

  • Mark. So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggl

    Mark.

    So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggle to free themselves of tyranny and poverty? And that it is immoral or illogical to send them weapons to free themselves of tyranny and poverty?

    And that you are so omniscient, knowledgeable and wise that you can predict the future of these people?

    Do you mean to justify statism? Do you mean to justify invasion? Do you mean to justify the usurpation of borders? Do you mean to justify aggression by military means? Do you mean to state that the Ukrainian people, to whom Russians prosecuted a holocaust and intentional starvation to kill the by the millions have nothing to fear from the most murderous neighbour possible other than China?

    I have met you and only spoken with you a bit. And I don’t necessarily think you are a liar.

    I think that like most libertines you are just punching far above your intellectual weight, and the combination off elf indoctrination into libertine ideology, a genetic anti-social bias and dunning Krueger blind you on the one hand and find outlet for your rage on the other.

    Your argument like most libertine arguments is immoral as I stated above; is the reason libertines fail in the moral marketplace; and is motivated by self congratulatory status masturbation to compensate for low desirability.

    The only difference between Ukrainians and Canadians is the influence of the neighbouring empire.

    America is not good. But Russia is the opposite of Liberty.

    Liberty evolved because we spoke the truth.

    Russia industrialised lying and turned it into a military doctrine.

    And you’ve been conquered by it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 04:52:00 UTC