Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • No doubt you’d find this interesting, perhaps some content there that might be w

    No doubt you’d find this interesting, perhaps some content there that might be workable. 🙂 Perhaps a response even.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 09:40:00 UTC

  • Lee C Waaks You know you got me thinking about your idea of fallibility and I th

    Lee C Waaks

    You know you got me thinking about your idea of fallibility and I think you might be right. Let me work on it for a few days. Thank you. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-10 17:16:00 UTC

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE? –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given herme

    WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    Precisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion.

    The origin of textual interpretation is religion.

    The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’.

    Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation.

    It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works.

    The purpose of:

    1) Operational language

    2) Internal Consistency

    3) External Correspondence

    4) Verification and Falsification

    …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason.

    Operational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims.

    The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body.

    The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

    Thanks for the great question. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 08:45:00 UTC

  • Curt, I have read this guy on and off since the 1990’s on the investment side. H

    Curt, I have read this guy on and off since the 1990’s on the investment side. His models were spot on for the end of the 2000 market, tech bust and, later, economic declines when he was at Princeton Economics. However, he went to jail in a murky case where he, along with Republic Bank, was accused by the SEC of misdeeds against the Japanese. He fought it as his own attorney (claiming Republic was blaming him for their losses) and lost and is now out. I cannot figure out now if he is a genius or completely delusional. However, I think you will enjoy this piece he just published.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-05 14:57:00 UTC

  • That would be great if there was someone to protect them FROM

    That would be great if there was someone to protect them FROM.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 22:24:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439888968499220480

    Reply addressees: @KazzieLB

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439887875501719552

    IN REPLY TO:

    @KazzieLB

    The people of #Crimea WANT Russian troops to protect and secure them. Ukraine, the USA and UN have no right to interfere.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439887875501719552

  • HERETICS WANTED! —- RE: Kinsella: I am not sure if what you are saying here is

    HERETICS WANTED!

    —-

    RE:

    Kinsella: I am not sure if what you are saying here is merely a folksy and idioscyncratic way of restating what Austrians like Hoppe, Mises, Rothbard have already said, or if this is supposed to be saying something different. IF so, I don’t quite follow you.

    “Curt Doolittle Hoppe was right about everything. He just didn’t solve the problem of causality.”

    Kinsella: …. It is not clear what the “problem of causality” is…? What would it mean to solve it?

    —-

    Folksy? Constructivism and Intuitionism are not folksy. What’s folksy is “I’m a simple libertarian”. 🙂

    If you’re using as a refutation, then what have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe said? (I know. I’ve read it all – and heard it over and over again.)

    What I find interesting is that praxeology, in most cases, my most libertarians, is used an attack on positivism (true) but positivism is different from empiricism – and empiricism turned out to provide a lot of insights that praxeology failed to.(Sticky prices etc.) The problem is, that empirical analysis of economic data has told us a LOT about human cooperation..

    So I don’t think I need to debate that empiricism (versus positivism) is more powerful than deduction from first principles.

    I don’t think I need to debate the canons of science nor the requirements of the scientific method. Enough people have done that.

    I don’t think I need to debate that little to nothing can be deduced from the ‘Axiom’ and its postulates. Enough people have done that.

    Given that we already use a logic of identity, a logic of relations, and a logic of causation, each of which is a test of internal consistency, I don’t think I have to debate that a logic of cooperation does not exist yet.

    So, then, what remains of Praxeology? A hollow attack on positivism that no one practices anyway? A misguided attack on empiricism? A mistaken classification of praxeology as apodictically certain and deductively powerful?

    So if it’s ‘BEEN SAID” then what has been said that survives?

    We can either reform praxeology into a formal logic of cooperation (more precise than Ostrom’s more general institutional rules, but the same principle applies), which can be used to test statements for internal consistency (proof) just as logic, math and physics(science) are used for the purposes of testing internal consistency, or we can simply abandon the entire Austrian program as a yet another pseudoscience of the Cosmopolitans like marx, freud and cantor gave us.

    So, rather than throw it all out (which is an option) and leave the Austrians to the dustbin of history, perhaps it’s preferable to resurrect praxeology as a formal logic predicated on empirical evidence, and used to test the internal consistency of economic theories (and moral statements), and empirical economics (the study of demonstrated preferences) and experimental psychology (the study of cognitive biases).

    Because there is no reason that the insights provided by Mises, rothbard and Hoppe that are NOT pseudoscientific, should be left on the margins of political economy, unavailable to those of us who desire liberty, because they’re morally incompatible with the high trust society, and argued in (pitiful) continental rationalism, rather than FORMAL LOGIC AND EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.

    It is quite possible I’ve just spent time studying enough fields that I’m not lost in the libertarian reality distortion field. But that’s the purpose of ideologies and religions: to distort reality through repetition of empty verbalisms rather than scientific correspondence with reality.

    -HERETICS WELCOME-

    Liberty doesn’t have to be constructed as a pseudoscience for stupid people. Liberty was produced by the organized use of violence to suppress all free riding of all forms, leaving only productive exchange of private property remaining.

    And if we are to possess liberty once again, it will be by the organized application of violence to demand it.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-26 12:27:00 UTC

  • @ Euromaidan Sochi?

    @ Euromaidan Sochi?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-21 22:49:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/436996144397578240

  • SECESSION Your rhetorical framework for both parts 1 and 2, is critical, and acc

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2014/02/07/secession-and-messianic-statism-evaluating-the-current-union-of-the-states-part-1-by-allen-mendenhall/ON SECESSION

    Your rhetorical framework for both parts 1 and 2, is critical, and accurate, but it does not take into account that decentralization would distribute all the wealth, status, and trade negotiating power currently in washington to the regions, and reduce the transaction cost of conducting economic policy.

    The arguments for secession are (a) normative (b) institutional (c) economic (d) artistic and cultural, and (d) personal – given that status would be redistributed to individuals in the regions.

    The arguments against secession are that the value of the dollar, the value of the military, and the value of insurance against catastrophe by all other regions. But it’s possible (and simple) to preserve those properties, and secede at the same time.

    (BTW: When defining the state as a territorial monopoly, it’s Weber that Rothbard is quoting.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-17 03:57:00 UTC