Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC. I just went through the comm

    ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC.

    I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.

    If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?

    That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.

    If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is

    Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.

    “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”

    And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:39:00 UTC

  • “When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl

    —“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical.

    Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment.

    As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis

    (Made. My. Day.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:17:00 UTC

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above.

    The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology.

    So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it.

    All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise.

    But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology.

    Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile.

    And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful.

    But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work.

    The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:14:00 UTC

  • (birth certificate)(from elsewhere) I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf,

    (birth certificate)(from elsewhere)

    I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf, along with a request to review it, and the cuts and pastes were still visible, (pdf’s store revision history just like word documents) and it was obvious that the background was added to the xerox copy afterward as an under-layer. It was a clumsy photocopy, cut, and paste job with an artificial background. There is good reason the original is gone (destroyed). My understanding, and the best explanation I have seen so far, is that data was copied and pasted from other certificates in the same hand in order to replace the uncomfortable data. I probably have it somewhere on an old hard drive, if I went looking for it. So as far as I know it was the work of a clumsy forger. I don’t even think it’s open to question.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 11:09:00 UTC

  • White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents

    White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents and purposes, it is culturally german. For the simple reason that most of white america has german origins. England is celtic, german, and scandinavian with french decoration. Germany is the heart of europe. It has no choice. Unlike scandinavia it has enemies at her borders. Scandinavians only have the sea. Hence the rather ridiculous egalitarianism of scandinavians. Scandinavian ‘privilege’ is like women’s privilege: unearned, only consumed.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:59:00 UTC

  • Sparta > Rome > Prussia > England > America (and Australia). No one else has don

    || Sparta > Rome > Prussia > England > America (and Australia).

    No one else has done it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:56:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF EXTENSION OF KINSHIP LOVE TO NON-KIN: MILITIA. In English, the wo

    THE ORIGINS OF EXTENSION OF KINSHIP LOVE TO NON-KIN: MILITIA.

    In English, the word ‘brother’ in military context, is a ‘term of art’, meaning that one will remain loyal under duress. (See Shakespeare). In other words, you can trust one another to ‘cover your ass’ on the battlefield. We often claim that this extension of kinship ‘love’ to non-kin has it’s origins in Christianity. But it was the first principle of the initiatic brotherhood of warriors from which all monotheistic religions evolved. So no, the extension of kinship love was dominant in militial prehistoric, and pre-christian europe, and the christianization of it as a means of rebellion against aristocracy by resistance using submission, was merely an attempt to replace the heroism and loyalty of Achilles and his tragedy, with the submission of jesus and his tragedy.

    The universe is a very simple place. Humans are simple creatures. Our problem is not so much in discovering new truths, but in discarding old lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:55:00 UTC

  • THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY” (important piece) (*read this*) – A

    THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY”

    (important piece) (*read this*)

    – Authority (via positiva) vs Decidability (via negativa). –

    Judges employ the via negativa of decidability in matters of tort for the simple reason that all reciprocity is decidable. The difference between individuals, groups, and nations, is in the scope of investments one is prohibited from imposing a cost against, thereby ‘authorizing’ decidability by reciprocity under tort.

    Now some groups use high investments in commons and demand high trust reciprocity, and some groups use low investments in commons and demand only low trust reciprocity. Some groups have been through the geographic, cultural, and genetic grinders of agrarianism, holding territory from competitors, and incrementally developing fixed capital, and incrementally expanding the trust network necessary for the production of advanced goods. And some cultures are either one generation removed from pastoralists, or transitioned directly from pastoralists to urbanites. In those cases we see low trust, low investment in commons, narrower definitions of investments (‘interests’), and narrower if not nearly non existent ethics.

    So for more culturally advanced peoples (higher trust, greater prohibitions on cost imposition and opportunity seizure, land holding, formal institutions of military, judiciary, government, treasury, technology, science, craftsmanship, industry), and for more genetically advanced peoples (production of neoteny, and reduction of the scale of the ‘cost imposing’ classes through reproductive constraint under manorialism), the scope of decidability in matters of tort (violations of reciprocity against the scope of investments) is greater than the imposition of costs cultural, habitual, imaginable, or tolerable for less developed peoples.

    The only thing interesting about this rather banal bit of empirical social science, is that women in every culture lag their men, and prefer to expand consumption and reverse neoteny, rather than accumulate such territorial capital by the prevention of consumption. And this fact is yet another expression of the difference between between the female reproductive strategy, and the male reproductive strategy. And another expression of the pre-developed people’s free riding on the land, and the advanced people’s productivity.

    So when one says he exercises “Authority”, in the prohibition of, or restitution for, theft, damage, parasitism, and free riding – he exercises universal justice (via negativa decidability) regardless of individual or social group, by the defense of property.

    When one says ‘authority’ in the via positiva construction of legislation or regulation, or enforcement of law, regulation and legislation, that prohibits imposition of costs against the investments made by others, he in fact acts morally – period. Just as when one imposes costs against investments made by others by action, regulation, or legislation, or command, then one acts immorally. Because that is the meaning of ‘moral’: reciprocity.

    This is a terribly uncomfortable truth.

    Becauses it provides an empirical measure of our contributions to society and therefore demonstrates our inequality of value, as well as the inequality of our groups and nations.

    And it’s unassailable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:01:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 09:26:00 UTC

  • MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for t

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    (from elsewhere)

    Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over:

    0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations.

    1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions).

    2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits).

    3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions.

    4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable).

    5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting.

    6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments

    7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit.

    8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality.

    9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence.

    For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense.

    If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism.

    But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse.

    But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress.

    The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 16:47:00 UTC