Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CO

    IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

    (important sketch)(capitalism)(efficient uses of capital)

    There are many more empirically efficient allocations of capital at any given moment. But there are not necessarily more efficient allocations of incentives. Since the voluntary organization of production requires an efficient allocation of incentives, then the maximum efficiency of any allocation of capital, is one in which we produce the widest distribution of incentives. The reason being that the construction of the voluntary organization of production that we call capitalism is not (as libertarians fantasize) natural behavior or rational choice, whatsoever. People must be provided with incentives to voluntarily organize production.

    This means that the entire cosmopolitan fantasy promoted by Rothbard on one side, and Soros on the other, and other advocates of immorality like Walter Block, is a justification. The most efficient use of capital is that in which the population is incentivized to construct and preserve the foundation of the economy: the voluntary organization of production.

    And so we seek a Pareto optimum between incentives to produce the voluntary order, and the efficiency of capital allocation in production within that voluntary order. And any increase in capital efficiency that produces a decrease in incentives is actually destructive.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to demonstrate that if people cannot join the market for production, that we must compensate them for the work of constructing the voluntary organization of production that makes the high productivity, high trust, high velocity and low friction under the voluntary organization of production possible.

    From this perspective, most rothbardian thought, like most cosmopolitan thought, is merely an elaborate obscurant art of fraud for the purpose of declaring without cost, that which is hugely expensive: high trust, high velocity, and the voluntary organization of production.

    If you understand this you will abandon libertinism (cosmopolitan libertarianism) and revert to aristocratic libertarianism (classical liberalism). Because we had it right. We did. But the American Neo-Puritans put a dent in it, women put a hole in it, and Jews and Catholics made a fissure out of it.

    Thankfully it isn’t impossible to fix: truth telling is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:38:00 UTC

  • More on Propertarian AI Theorizer paired with conscience, Conscience has access

    More on Propertarian AI

    Theorizer paired with conscience,

    Conscience has access to same memory, and same stimuli.

    Conscience seeks out involuntary transfers, and shuts them down.

    Conscience is not intelligent per, in that it doesn’t ‘want’ anything other than to test hypotheses for involuntary transfers.

    Theorizer cannot perceive Conscience.

    Conscience cannot perceive theorizer.

    Conscience erases memory of ideas that cause involuntary transfer.

    In this sense, a machine can be MORE moral than we are, since forgetting something we have thought, isn’t something we know how to do.

    More on this, but it is quite possible to make an AI that behaves well, (respects property) just as it is possible to create a human that respects property.

    The question is only whether the theorizer and the conscience have equal intelligence, not whether the AI is more intelligent than we are. Imposition of costs due to involuntary transfer of property is just as decidable as the oddness or evenness of a number.

    So to create an intelligence you create a theorizer that looks for opportunities and a conscience that looks to inhibit ideas that cause involuntary transfers.

    That is the means of designing an artificial intelligence.

    Nature did it with us the same way. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-18 19:49:00 UTC

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 4) MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS (cerebral

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 4)

    MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    (cerebral)(interesting)

    I hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims.

    LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION

    Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity.

    ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY

    Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law.

    PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM

    Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM)

    Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols.

    PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM

    Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM

    Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL

    Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 07:04:00 UTC

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • MORAL CONSTRAINT VIA OPERATIONS FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS (cerebral)(interest

    MORAL CONSTRAINT VIA OPERATIONS FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    (cerebral)(interesting)

    I hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims.

    LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION

    Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity.

    ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY

    Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law.

    PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM

    Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM)

    Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols.

    PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM

    Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM

    Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL

    Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 08:43:00 UTC

  • MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS (cerebral)(interesting) I hope tha

    MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    (cerebral)(interesting)

    I hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims.

    LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION

    Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity.

    ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY

    Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law.

    PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM

    Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM

    Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM

    Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL

    Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 08:39:00 UTC

  • OVERSING Market sort of looks like this now: Email->Facebook->Yammer->Facebook@w

    OVERSING

    Market sort of looks like this now:

    Email->Facebook->Yammer->Facebook@work->

    ………………………………………->Asana->Mavenlink->

    …………………………………………………………………….->Oversing

    We will have the top of the market, but then, as in anything, that’s probably not area of peak demand. Which is fine with me. I’d rather be at the top of the market with customers at the top of the market. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 07:46:00 UTC

  • FOREIGN POLICY UNDER ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – IT’S NOT COMPLICATED. Y-AXIS

    FOREIGN POLICY UNDER ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – IT’S NOT COMPLICATED.

    Y-AXIS : Aristocratic Egalitarian Morality – Meaning an increase in the suppression of free riding in order to obtain higher trust, higher economic velocity, and greater liberty, in exchange for reciprocal warranty of the same.

    X-AXIS: Strategic Interest – meaning a decrease in economic, military and moral risk, and an increase in current costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-20 03:29:00 UTC

  • TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM (getting very close now) The Question: How do we war

    TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM

    (getting very close now)

    The Question:

    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    0) Sensible (intuitively possible)

    1) Meaningfully expressible ( as an hypothesis )

    2) Internally consistent and falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)

    3) Externally correspondent and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)

    4) Existentially possible (operationally construct-able/observable)

    5) Voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)

    6) Market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) Market irrefutable (law)

    8) Irrefutable under original experience (Perceivable Truth)

    9) Ultimately parsimonious description (Analytic Truth)

    10) Informationally complete and tautologically identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    OUR WARRANTY IS:

    I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    CRITICISM OF INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    Things can’t ‘be’ true, we can only speak/write truthfully.

    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 07:53:00 UTC