Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • ANOTHER EXAMPLE —“I wonder if Curt Doolittle would share with us which economi

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE

    —“I wonder if Curt Doolittle would share with us which economic discipline ie Keynesianism or Friedman’s Chicagoan School that is more scientific than Austrian economics.”—Brian White

    Brian,

    I can define ‘Scientific’ very precisely. I am not sure that I can define Austrian Economics so precisely – other than stating it as the two German and Cosmopolitan (Misesian/Rothbardian) branches. The germans did not make any pseudoscientific claims that I am aware of. However, Mises and Rothbard make expressly pseudoscientific arguments – not the least of which is conflating axiomatic (complete) systems for constructing proofs, with theoretical (incomplete) systems for constructing models. The definition of pseudoscientific is a claim that does not follow the scientific method. The scientific method however, is not in fact a method, but a set of moral constraints on warrantable (truthful) speech. Mises claims an axiomatic system is a science rather than a logic. This is simply false. (albeit his era was plagued with philosophical confusion as philosophy desperately attempted to attain the respectability of science. Today it is group with theology both in book stores and in academic budgets..)

    —“Okay Curt I was more interested to know if there were other economic sciences that you concluded were more scientific”—Brian White

    Brian,

    Logical fallacy.

    Something is not more scientific than something else. The point of demarcation in science is whether the scientific method is used or not. As such practicing science is a binary proposition, not an analog proposition. So “more scientific” is not possible. Either someone follows the scientific method or one does not. The definition of ‘science’ is whether one practices the scientific method.

    Economic science is practiced scientifically. Misesianism is the non-scientific branch of Austrian economics. All working economists today who call themselves Austrians (that I know of) practice empirical, scientific, economics. In other words, they are not Misesians.

    Instead,working Austrians require praxeological testing (operational falsification) of economic theories rather than macro correlations alone. This is tantamount to placing two additional requirements on the scientific method: (a) that economic theories must be operationally falsifiable, and (b) that economic theories of policy must be stated such that they expose the degree of moral or immoral consequences.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-02 04:50:00 UTC

  • I think such arguments are not cast in useful frames, because the difference bet

    http://johnquiggin.com/2014/12/31/consequentialist-arguments-for-deontological-positions/comment-page-1/#comment-249747John,

    I think such arguments are not cast in useful frames, because the difference between Imitative(virtue) ethics, rule(deontological) ethics, and outcome(consequentialist) ethics, is merely the information one has at one’s disposal in making judgements. Just as abduction, induction and deduction are different levels of guesswork depending upon the information we have at our disposal. In that light, I am not sure that the assumption that one combines rule justifications and consequent justifications is any more than an artifact of the normal process of debating moral rules because of the outcomes they produce. There isn’t anything irrational about it.

    But, rather than frame the question as one of rationalism, we can also frame it scientifically: Humans demonstrably justify our moral intuitions through a fog of cognitive biases that are unequally distributed in intensity across all of us – not the least of which are by gender, kin, class, family structure, and pressures from local geographic competition. It is as painfully obvious that you are an Australian as it is to you that I am an American, or someone else is a Canadian, Brit or German. Yet each of us in the final analysis relies upon an intuitionistic judgment. And appeals to scientific judgement are rare. In your post you make this same argument: that in the end we result to intuition.

    So, the very idea of a common good achievable by moral argument among well intentioned equals is probably illogical – which is why we cannot achieve it. We were relatively equal in interests under craftsman-agrarianism and the absolute nuclear family. But outside of those conditions, our inequality of interests is increasingly visible, expressed and our inequality of interests dominant. And particularly with the dissolution of the family and the de-nationalism of liberalism, our inequality of interests is increasingly expressed in political preferences.

    Instead of operating under the pretense of equals under majority rule, if we treat one another as possessed of different sensory biases (roles) in a division of inter-temporal reproductive labor, and that we use voluntary exchange as our information system, then under those conditions, majority rule is only slightly less terrible a means of cooperating than tyranny, and a failure to construct exchanges lost opportunity for cooperation.

    And so our purpose, if better served, in economic science (the study of human cooperation), is to provide institutional means for facilitating superior communication (exchanges) between individuals and groups, rather than attempting to construct unknowable optimums under majority rule.

    At that point fallacious arguments predicated upon false premises will no longer be necessary and we can simply argue about what we are each willing to do, instead of what we justify to be good albeit if in our own illusory and biased interests.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,

    http://johnquiggin.com/2014/12/31/consequentialist-arguments-for-deontological-positions/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-30 23:13:00 UTC

  • (I just cannot compete with Eli’s ability to argue Propertarianism’s Aristocrati

    (I just cannot compete with Eli’s ability to argue Propertarianism’s Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethos in heroic terms. Congrats man. Humbled as always.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 04:50:00 UTC

  • It’s A False Moral Equivalence: Comparing Russian and American Political Interference

    (reposted from original site) [P]at. I rarely disagree with you, but regarding Russia, you posit a moral equivalency where none exists. Here is why: The USA’s  *Demonstrated* postwar policy operates by the following criteria: 1) BORDERS – states who don’t respect borders can lead to world wars. 2) HUMAN RIGHTS – states who don’t respect human rights export problems to the rest of us. 3) CONSUMER CAPITALISM – consumer capitalism is in the interests of ordinary people, because it will raise them out of ignorance and poverty, and more importantly, it creates states that can be competed with, and cooperated with, economically rather than militarily – this is profound because just as under consumer capitalism the market competition and conflict produce beneficial ends for consumers, so does does market competition between states produce beneficial ends for consumers since it forces a choice between consumption and expenditure on the ambitions of the central government – not the least of which is military expansion. But that same policy also includes our greatest failure: 4) DEMOCRACY – it is our evangelism of democracy under the myth that all people desire and are capable of it, which has led to most or our failures. WHY DEMOCRACY IS THE SOURCE OF AMERICAN POLICY FAILURES Why? Because Northern europeans were uniquely capable of self rule for historical reasons: a) we have a high trust society build through extensive outbreeding. (See Emmanuel Todd) b) we have had centuries of suppression of the breeding of the underclasses under manorialism and its predecessors (See Clark and Todd) c) We have had a unique history of the jury of our peers, rather than authority, for what appears to be more than 4000 years, and the common law for nearly as long – and as such a fairly unique ability and cognizance of truth and truth telling that separates us from the rest of the world. The rest of the world, even southern Europe, cannot accomplish self rule because of pervasive corruption (See Fukuyama). RUSSIA Russia is a very, very, low trust society that DEPENDS upon systemic corruption to function, but that imposes corruption on its client states. Russia actively imposes brutality, murder, genocide on low trust countries to create military and commercial order necessary for low trust peoples to cooperate. Conversely eastern europeans, especially Ukrainians, are NOT low trust peoples, any more so than Poles who are indistinguishable from Ukrainians, or even northern Italians (whom despite being largely germanic, the western Slavs resemble in many ways). So, Russian export of low trust means of government onto middle trust countries that can easily develop into high trust countries is by any definition evil and immoral, (they are Christian here in the east after all, and christianity breeds wealth because it breeds trust.) Just as American export of high trust means of government into low trust polities is harmful to them – they are incapable of self rule. They are incapable of self rule in many cases because they still practice inbreeding to control property in the family. (This is what prevents India from advancing more rapidly as well.) THE HIGH VS LOW TRUST PEOPLES So this is the difference between American and Russian political exports: If you export good government onto a medium or high trust people they they will flourish. If you export a low trust means of government on a low trust polity, they will also benefit somewhat – Russia’s southern neighbors did even if eastern europeans were murdered by the millions because of it. Neither the Russians nor the americans are aware of Emmanuel Todd’s insights: That the only way to create a high trust society is the combination of consumer capitalism and outlawing near-breeding and inbreeding. Because as soon as you see everyone as a potential customer, business associate, mate or family member, trust must increase. Just as if you inbreed and rely upon relationships and corruption and parasitism, you will live in poverty (see Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society). Most of the world lives in poverty because they have not adopted the christian ethic of treating all men as members of your family. This is the the first secret of christianity The second is the outlawing of cousin marriage by the church. The third was the granting of property rights to women by the church. The fourth was the construction of chivalry so that status only achievable by martial means was achievable by acts of public service. These activities by the church were not prescient, but practical, and when combined with out indo-european heroism, birth control, truth telling, juries, and local sovereignty made us capable of self rule. But none of these would have been possible had it not been for the aristocratic egalitarian ethos (see Ricardo Duchesne), which states that any man who wishes to fight for sovereignty must be aided: we must insure anyone who asks for defense as a means of increasing our numbers. We have been insuring one another’s property for thousands of years by the point of our spears, swords, bayonets and bullets. It is how we keep our numbers – we have always been a minority on the western edge of the world, and for most of history of poor one. Yet we were able to defeat greater numbers and and wealthier opponents for thousands of years. Other countries cannot self rule because they have not experienced any of these advances. In fact, they find it heinous and prefer their familialism. And given our differences in reproductive rates, they may hold the correct evolutionary strategy – and not us. Western high trust society, high consumption and low birth rates, are not mathematically compatible with immigration of low trust peoples, dependence upon growth of consumption, and extensive redistribution. It is mathematically inescapable suicide (which you know, I know.) So while in general I share your ideological position on all but marginal matters, it is this one that I think you err in: you are presuming we are strong enough on our own, and abandoning our aristocratic egalitarian strategy of keeping up our numbers by supporting the liberty of any who will fight along side us to preserve it. Instead we must always seek to increase our numbers – of high trust Christians. Eastern European Christians are ‘us’. Ukrainians are ‘us’. Russians are steppe barbarians that understand only power. And in their world-view, truth is concept for fools. For Russians, “Words are just sounds you make to distract people so that you can defeat them”. This difference in trust and truth is what separates Russians from westerners: they are a mix between us and the Chinese. Thy are a despotic low trust people with european aspirations and european mythos, but who have been influenced by mongol, muslim and turkic despotism such that they remain low trust people – what we mean by ‘barbarians’. They never had our commerce and outbreeding so they never developed trust and universalism. Unfortunately Gorbachev’s vision to unite the circumpolar people would have been successful and beneficial for the world could we have achieved it. The only thing keeping Russians from despotism is 100 thousand western europeans running their laws for three generations. Which is exactly what it takes to transform a country to western levels unless it can construct a powerful christian minority capable of taking rule long enough to transform the culture’s expectations into one that depends upon property rights, human rights, and dependable rule of law. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, Regarding: A Russophobic Rant From Congress TAKIMAG.COM|BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

  • It’s A False Moral Equivalence: Comparing Russian and American Political Interference

    (reposted from original site) [P]at. I rarely disagree with you, but regarding Russia, you posit a moral equivalency where none exists. Here is why: The USA’s  *Demonstrated* postwar policy operates by the following criteria: 1) BORDERS – states who don’t respect borders can lead to world wars. 2) HUMAN RIGHTS – states who don’t respect human rights export problems to the rest of us. 3) CONSUMER CAPITALISM – consumer capitalism is in the interests of ordinary people, because it will raise them out of ignorance and poverty, and more importantly, it creates states that can be competed with, and cooperated with, economically rather than militarily – this is profound because just as under consumer capitalism the market competition and conflict produce beneficial ends for consumers, so does does market competition between states produce beneficial ends for consumers since it forces a choice between consumption and expenditure on the ambitions of the central government – not the least of which is military expansion. But that same policy also includes our greatest failure: 4) DEMOCRACY – it is our evangelism of democracy under the myth that all people desire and are capable of it, which has led to most or our failures. WHY DEMOCRACY IS THE SOURCE OF AMERICAN POLICY FAILURES Why? Because Northern europeans were uniquely capable of self rule for historical reasons: a) we have a high trust society build through extensive outbreeding. (See Emmanuel Todd) b) we have had centuries of suppression of the breeding of the underclasses under manorialism and its predecessors (See Clark and Todd) c) We have had a unique history of the jury of our peers, rather than authority, for what appears to be more than 4000 years, and the common law for nearly as long – and as such a fairly unique ability and cognizance of truth and truth telling that separates us from the rest of the world. The rest of the world, even southern Europe, cannot accomplish self rule because of pervasive corruption (See Fukuyama). RUSSIA Russia is a very, very, low trust society that DEPENDS upon systemic corruption to function, but that imposes corruption on its client states. Russia actively imposes brutality, murder, genocide on low trust countries to create military and commercial order necessary for low trust peoples to cooperate. Conversely eastern europeans, especially Ukrainians, are NOT low trust peoples, any more so than Poles who are indistinguishable from Ukrainians, or even northern Italians (whom despite being largely germanic, the western Slavs resemble in many ways). So, Russian export of low trust means of government onto middle trust countries that can easily develop into high trust countries is by any definition evil and immoral, (they are Christian here in the east after all, and christianity breeds wealth because it breeds trust.) Just as American export of high trust means of government into low trust polities is harmful to them – they are incapable of self rule. They are incapable of self rule in many cases because they still practice inbreeding to control property in the family. (This is what prevents India from advancing more rapidly as well.) THE HIGH VS LOW TRUST PEOPLES So this is the difference between American and Russian political exports: If you export good government onto a medium or high trust people they they will flourish. If you export a low trust means of government on a low trust polity, they will also benefit somewhat – Russia’s southern neighbors did even if eastern europeans were murdered by the millions because of it. Neither the Russians nor the americans are aware of Emmanuel Todd’s insights: That the only way to create a high trust society is the combination of consumer capitalism and outlawing near-breeding and inbreeding. Because as soon as you see everyone as a potential customer, business associate, mate or family member, trust must increase. Just as if you inbreed and rely upon relationships and corruption and parasitism, you will live in poverty (see Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society). Most of the world lives in poverty because they have not adopted the christian ethic of treating all men as members of your family. This is the the first secret of christianity The second is the outlawing of cousin marriage by the church. The third was the granting of property rights to women by the church. The fourth was the construction of chivalry so that status only achievable by martial means was achievable by acts of public service. These activities by the church were not prescient, but practical, and when combined with out indo-european heroism, birth control, truth telling, juries, and local sovereignty made us capable of self rule. But none of these would have been possible had it not been for the aristocratic egalitarian ethos (see Ricardo Duchesne), which states that any man who wishes to fight for sovereignty must be aided: we must insure anyone who asks for defense as a means of increasing our numbers. We have been insuring one another’s property for thousands of years by the point of our spears, swords, bayonets and bullets. It is how we keep our numbers – we have always been a minority on the western edge of the world, and for most of history of poor one. Yet we were able to defeat greater numbers and and wealthier opponents for thousands of years. Other countries cannot self rule because they have not experienced any of these advances. In fact, they find it heinous and prefer their familialism. And given our differences in reproductive rates, they may hold the correct evolutionary strategy – and not us. Western high trust society, high consumption and low birth rates, are not mathematically compatible with immigration of low trust peoples, dependence upon growth of consumption, and extensive redistribution. It is mathematically inescapable suicide (which you know, I know.) So while in general I share your ideological position on all but marginal matters, it is this one that I think you err in: you are presuming we are strong enough on our own, and abandoning our aristocratic egalitarian strategy of keeping up our numbers by supporting the liberty of any who will fight along side us to preserve it. Instead we must always seek to increase our numbers – of high trust Christians. Eastern European Christians are ‘us’. Ukrainians are ‘us’. Russians are steppe barbarians that understand only power. And in their world-view, truth is concept for fools. For Russians, “Words are just sounds you make to distract people so that you can defeat them”. This difference in trust and truth is what separates Russians from westerners: they are a mix between us and the Chinese. Thy are a despotic low trust people with european aspirations and european mythos, but who have been influenced by mongol, muslim and turkic despotism such that they remain low trust people – what we mean by ‘barbarians’. They never had our commerce and outbreeding so they never developed trust and universalism. Unfortunately Gorbachev’s vision to unite the circumpolar people would have been successful and beneficial for the world could we have achieved it. The only thing keeping Russians from despotism is 100 thousand western europeans running their laws for three generations. Which is exactly what it takes to transform a country to western levels unless it can construct a powerful christian minority capable of taking rule long enough to transform the culture’s expectations into one that depends upon property rights, human rights, and dependable rule of law. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, Regarding: A Russophobic Rant From Congress TAKIMAG.COM|BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

  • How To Present Mises and Rand in the Context of the 20th Century?

    [I] would present it (as I do) as a last ditch desperate  attempt to reach the enlightenment utopia embodied in both cosmopolitan middle  class universalism, and anglo puritanical middle class universalism. But that both movements were failures and had to be, because universalism and equality are merely utilitarian merchant philosophies of self interest made possible by temporary economic advantage….

    It is cheaper to believe everyone is your friend rather than your competitor. It’s not only the europeans who have converted the cost of defense to consumption – it’s all of western civilization.

    Writing up presentation on Mises, Rand and the 20th Century. In a very un-Rand thing to do, crowd source, what points would you stress? If you‘re at all familiar with me you will know where I‘d go in this, but where would you go?
    – Peter Boettke

  • How To Present Mises and Rand in the Context of the 20th Century?

    [I] would present it (as I do) as a last ditch desperate  attempt to reach the enlightenment utopia embodied in both cosmopolitan middle  class universalism, and anglo puritanical middle class universalism. But that both movements were failures and had to be, because universalism and equality are merely utilitarian merchant philosophies of self interest made possible by temporary economic advantage….

    It is cheaper to believe everyone is your friend rather than your competitor. It’s not only the europeans who have converted the cost of defense to consumption – it’s all of western civilization.

    Writing up presentation on Mises, Rand and the 20th Century. In a very un-Rand thing to do, crowd source, what points would you stress? If you‘re at all familiar with me you will know where I‘d go in this, but where would you go?
    – Peter Boettke

  • Don. Where is your head at on the Drudge Thing? Still on deck or no? Don Finnega

    Don. Where is your head at on the Drudge Thing? Still on deck or no?

    Don Finnegan

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-10 09:18:00 UTC

  • we need to take theses people out and expose them as Russian funded propagandist

    http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2014/12/07/house-chooses-new-cold-war-with-russia/Roman we need to take theses people out and expose them as Russian funded propagandists.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-08 13:15:00 UTC

  • Yes, well I know we are arguing ‘Autistically’, by which you mean ‘caclulatively

    Yes, well I know we are arguing ‘Autistically’, by which you mean ‘caclulatively’ rather than ‘intuitively’. But that is not a criticism, any more than employing any other form of logic or calculation is open to criticism. The question is only whether we are making statements that are more truthful than the statements you make with your intuition. And we can demonstrate that our statements are more truthful than your intuition. Which should not be surprising, since your intuition quite often lies not only lies to you, but causes you to unknowingly lie to the rest of us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 14:51:00 UTC