Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • How much damage has the libertarian movement done to intellectual discourse vs t

    How much damage has the libertarian movement done to intellectual discourse vs the good? How much damage has the marxist movement done to intellectual discourse vs the good? How much damage has the conservative movement done to intellectual discourse vs the good?

    The conservatives have contributed nothing. The Friedmanites did something good, but the rothbardians have been a disaster. The marxists haven’t done any good, nor have the postmodernists, and they have been as damaging to the civilization as was christianity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 13:57:00 UTC

  • PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE) Half truth. (a lie a

    PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE)

    Half truth. (a lie actually). Basic Research: the atomic bomb, the space program, weapons research, and the large hadron collider, the human genome project, cannot be paid for by private industry.

    Private industry however can perform applied research, and is far better at it than government might ever be.

    And it’s pretty clear that government ‘lending’ for the purpose of private industry’s applied research is the best of all – IFF we capture returns for the polity (directly or indirectly) by doing so.

    In other words, ‘market failure’ is not really failure, but ‘market reach’ is limited. There is often extraordinary value either directly (war) or indirectly (jump starting applies research) or very indirectly (leading knowledge capture and localizing talent). That the private market has no way of capturing the benefits of directly, yet rewards the public market (commons) profoundly.

    (Hell, there are quite a few of us who knew how to solve the Hard AI Problem, the issue was that no private investors would possibly fund that big an investment risk, and no government agency could tell the difference between possible solution and bullshit. So AI that we see today should have (in my opinion) been solved over a decade ago.)

    —“According to the National Science Foundation, 29 percent of federal R&D money goes to universities, 29 percent goes to industry, and another 29 percent goes to researchers who work directly for federal agencies. About 10 percent goes to federally funded labs operated by private contractors.”—

    That seems about right to me by back-of-the-napkin analysis. I would prefer that we provide investments and capture returns rather than ‘fund’ whenever possible, but this is merely a choice of providing incentives to whom.

    My primary complaint is that we must pay to access research publications and that just needs to end immediately.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 13:54:00 UTC

  • IT’s not the nouns that” fool you” it’s the grammar – or rather, the absence of

    IT’s not the nouns that” fool you” it’s the grammar – or rather, the absence of grammar.

    Primary culprit behind which all fictions hide is the verb to be. If you eliminate it, then it’s extremely hard to create false equivalencies (which is what you’re describing). If you add operational grammar Meaning complete sentences that name actors, objects, actions, transformations, and consequences, then it is almost impossible to state an undetectable false equivalency. If in addition you require any noun or verb be stated as a member of a series, then it will be all but impossible to employ the pretense of knowledge.

    English is a high precision, low context language. That means it is burdensome, can be wordy, but can be very precise – if you use the language. But we tend to use substitution for either brevity, or to obscure our ignorance – which is which is only decidable if the person can state that which he states in brevity, in full sentences of operational grammar. In other words, if we deflate our sentences from approximations to names of actors, actions, and objects, it becomes almost impossible to state a falsehood.

    (see E-Prime, which I’m sure you’re aware of. See Operationalism int he scientific method, operationism in psychology, proofs in mathematics and logic, and the failed program of praxeology – operationalism in economics and ethics.)

    The problem is the grammar: what surrounds the noun and provides context and limits. Not the noun. A noun is just a name. A category if broad, a type if narrow, and an entity if unique. But the limits of that noun, whether category, type, or entity are provided by context (limits) produced by the grammar.

    So, I might go back to casting but suspicion on the noun, then saving the noun and blaming the grammar, and because of that, the speaker – because it is the speaker who exercises the pretense of knowledge without testing whether he knows of what he speaks (or reads), whenever he does not speak it in burdensome grammar – and instead he avoids that burdensome grammar, for the purpose of either brevity, approximation, pretense of knowledge, or outright deception.

    (if you note that last sentence you’ll see what I mean by the use of series to deflate a category into a spectrum.)

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 13:26:00 UTC

  • PERFECT GOVERNMENT My view of a perfect government is a monarchy that acts like

    PERFECT GOVERNMENT

    My view of a perfect government is a monarchy that acts like Silicon Valley VC’s. And I’ve written about this before: that the large silicon valley VCs function as the optimum form of ‘government’ assuming that ‘government’ refers to production of commons and ‘rule’ refers to the judiciary under natural law.

    In fact, this is the origin of western diverse polities. The major difference being that western VC’s invested in conquest, enslavement, and cattle raids.

    However, the model converts easily to productive(technological) rather than parasitic (agrarian).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 12:29:00 UTC

  • WISE UP: NATURAL LAW *WILL* SAVE THE WEST AND EMPOWER IT. —“I’ve read on natur

    WISE UP: NATURAL LAW *WILL* SAVE THE WEST AND EMPOWER IT.

    —“I’ve read on natural law and I still don’t understand it. Sounds like a cover all for social pseudo-science that sounds clever.”— A Friend.

    You should have stopped with ‘i don’t understand it’. Because that’s all you can honestly say.

    Either you believe your people are in fact superior and can out-compete others if they eliminate the ability to engage in parasitism, or you admit that they are inferior. There is no way out of it.

    I think every thinking person is aware that this is my point. We discovered and use natural law because we CAN use it.

    But you might also want to look at the evolution of natural law (of cooperation) just as we look at the evolution of physical laws (of nature). And as such you may have an archaic understanding of it.

    So my position is (empirically), that western civilization AND western peoples are superior – although I attribute that superiority to the result of civilization more so than original genetics (i might be wrong).

    And that under natural law, the lesser peoples cannot compete. And instead of preserving our current vulnerability to those lesser peoples, I want to FIX OUR VULNERABILITY by the institution of natural law, so that no other peoples CAN do what they have done, and our ‘betrayers’ internally cannot do what they have done.

    This means we pay the cost of ending Christianity as the germans have tried to at least three times now.

    Because christianity is the door through which we have been defeated twice.

    We cannot leave open that door – or any door that allows the unfit to argue, to act, or to profit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 12:17:00 UTC

  • Microsoft is one of those companies that manufactures false positives faster tha

    —Microsoft is one of those companies that manufactures false positives faster than the left can manufacture excuses for its failures.—

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 12:08:00 UTC

  • NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE –“What if

    NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE

    –“What if I told you that any government ownership of industry is socialism?’— (a well meaning fool)

    That is not true. Any government ownership is separate from government management. Any management at cost (loss), at non-profit, and for profit determines returns for shareholders. The empirical evidence is that government investment in research and development, and in serving as financier and insurer of last resort has be disproportionately beneficial for peoples. We might argue instead that it is *necessary*. The only question is whether the government forces a monopoly or partial monopoly in favor of such an industry, and whether the management operates at a loss, at non-profit, or for profit. And whether those profits are distributed to employees, managers, or owners (citizens). In fact, we should, as citizens, ask why the majority of investment returns are not returned to the commons (government) for use by the citizenry when government (citizens) provide funding and insurance of last resort. In other words, the financial sector as it is structured today other than as early stage investors, appears to be parasitic upon those institutions (industries) for which the government serves as both financier and insurer of last resort.

    The question is whether government manages (bad) or not. Not whether government invests or not.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:59:00 UTC

  • COMPLETING THE RELATIVE REVOLUTION People had a very hard time transitioning fro

    COMPLETING THE RELATIVE REVOLUTION

    People had a very hard time transitioning from the selfish point of reference (geometry and justificationary truth) to the reciprocal point of reference (calculus and evolutionary epistemology) that the discourse on ‘freedom’ is likewise tapped in the selfish (static) point of reference, and that reciprocity and marginalism are lagging darwinism in adoption in the philosophical discourse (or that philosophical discourse is an unscientific prison just as theology was).

    As I understand it, (because these things have become very clear to me) the problem is that philosophy is the same kind of prison that was theology. And that the lessons of the 20th century (all logic is but tautology) is not yet learned.

    Once the fixed point of reference is eliminated, we have only relative frames to work with. This is the insight of calculus, darwinism, of marginalism, and of relativity – and of reciprocity.

    The fixed point of reference is merely an artifact of slow relative points of change at human scale. Beyond human scale, and in large numbers, at high causal density, we must seek measurements (reciprocity, survival, equilibria, lie groups/intermediary patterns) to test relative change.

    And that is just very hard for humans to learn without playing games on computers which allow us to model time at different rates.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:50:00 UTC

  • YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE (re other, older, civilizations) You are all making the

    YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE

    (re other, older, civilizations)

    You are all making the same mistake between innovation (which is a function of wealth available for investment) and what one DOES with that innovation. The question remains: why did china stagnate (we know). Why did India stagnate (we know). Why did judaism stagnate (we know), Why did islam stagnate (we know). Why did christianity stagnate (we know). And why did the west recover in the modern world (we know).

    The west isn’t always first. We are however FASTEST.

    From the age of the chariot to the present, that is what separates the west from the rest: we use truth to outmaneuver opposition regardless of threat to the dominance hierarchy – and we can do so because we maintain many small markets that constantly adapt, rather than a large bureaucracy that calcifies.

    There is no comparison to the west, and the only one even close is china. The optimum for western civilization would be either the west builds a great wall against the steppe and desert tribal peoples (primitives), as has china, and stay within our boundaries as has china, or to complete our transformation of the planet, but WITHOUT integrating with the local peoples.

    Our attempt at discount: the best of both worlds, which is the problem in the ancient world and in our modern, is to assume that primitive peoples are able to exist in, or operate, high trust polities with markets that present consistent threats to the dominance hierarchy. As far as I know, only the west is able to do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:40:00 UTC

  • THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media) —“Can you share your though

    THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media)

    —“Can you share your thoughts on ”anti-competitive” behaviour of dominant companies? If you have already shared your views on the subject will appreciate a link to your post on the subject . Thanks”— Rakesh Sahgal

    —“So why should we regulate these successful giants?”—Corey Harms

    Search (google), Converse (facebook), Acquire (Amazon), Dispute (Court), Repair (healthcare). What’s Missing? (a) finance/credit/banking, and (b) organization of production.

    In other words, aside from family(sex), invention, financing, and production – all of which require secrecy in the seizure of opportunities, and preservation of the markets, there is no reason why google, facebook, amazon/ups, are not utilities the same way that courts, energy/water/sewer/transportation/telecommunications, healthcare are utilities.

    Why? The problem is that advertising provides the same malincentives (corruption) that using representatives (politicians) provides. And the total spending on advertising in google, facebook, is trivial compared to their asset value as communication platforms. I mean, the cost of operating google and facebook outside of their playtoy (repeated failures) experiments on the shareholder dollar, is trivial.

    Advertising has value (well, truthful advertising does). However, the modification of search results and the modification of facebook content constitutes ‘disinformation’ (deception). And the suppression of free speech on the platforms to provide advertisers with more surface area for advertizing is again, a form of deception.

    As such the problem is eliminating the ability of ‘utilities’ to engage in revenue expansion by means of exploiting users rather than merely requiring advertisers to improve their products, services, and messaging.

    In other words, they need to favor the maximum truth regardless of profits, rather than the minimum truth necessary to maximize profits: they need to be regulated. And they need only be regulated to non-interference (non-aggression).

    As I’ve written about lately in my call for Facebook to be regulated, there is no reason (at all) why facebook cannot allow us to op-into socially taboo subjects and eliminate our ability to opt-into illegal subjects. The problem is that it would provide a degree of precision that advertisers would use to demand lower fees.

    So as far as I know, the future looks to me like there are a lot more public utilities. And I have my target on a lot of companies providing information and credit that need to be raised to the same standard as those companies that provide products and services.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 10:45:00 UTC