Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THREE POINTS TO HELP: 1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through t

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2017/03/12/the-president-undermining-economic-data-is-no-laughing-matter/?utm_source=followingimmediate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170312Adam.

    THREE POINTS TO HELP:

    1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office: “Say what the base thinks, and cause the media to justify its possition thereby educating the people.” In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the press in control of the discourse.

    I’m not the only person who has been putting this forward, dozens of others have.

    2) One of the other techniques he makes use of is that conservatives speak in hyperbole in order to accentuate the conservative intuition to treat all moral statements under the Kantian Categorical Imperative: what if everyone did that, or what would be the consequences of a lot of this happening? (The intuition of the conservative time preference).

    3) As someone who has spent a few decades now working on performative truth (and what we refer to as the scientific method), I think many of us in the population are desirous of putting the shoe on the other public intellectuals foot so to speak, and changing to where we actively interrogate the state, academy, and media. If for no other reason than the misuse of statistics, and the misrepresentation of nearly all ‘reserach’ in the social sciences and psychology.

    Even within that discipline of economics, I find it trivially easy to demonstrate that almost every measure we can find constitutes cherrypicking and does not fully account for the changes in various forms of capital, and the cost of doing so. Isn’t economics of growth de-facto cherrypicking?

    Anyway. On behalf of the public I prefer that politicians prosecute the academy state and media. Because those of us out here in the fields (little think tanks included) are clearly not able to do so in sufficient numbers.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 19:22:00 UTC

  • Example. Library, woman shrieks because she can’t find her child for a moment. E

    Example.

    Library, woman shrieks because she can’t find her child for a moment.

    Every man in hearing range is on his feet and moving before her next breath. We don’t even think, we just move.

    All the women…. sitting and watching.

    Never understand why women are afraid of men in general.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 16:19:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 15:38:00 UTC

  • LET ME FIND THAT FOR YOU…. lol to find a video. take a screenshot of the first

    LET ME FIND THAT FOR YOU…. lol

    to find a video.

    take a screenshot of the first second

    crop it.

    google image search

    there you go.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 15:05:00 UTC

  • ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES” I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which

    ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES”

    I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.

    I am extremely talented at being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.

    I am extremely talented in the use of cunning violence while being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.

    I have worked very hard to be a little scribbling hamster despite the brutality of my upbringing ( which was horrific by any account. )

    In general, most of the problems you can solve by being an ass—-, a ruthless ass—-, and a cunningly violent ruthless ass—-, are not actually problems; but opportunities to let nature take its course while you drink coffee and watch the train wreck.

    Personally I love being a hamster. I would rather watch and appreciate people, adore beautiful women, and savor the arts of words, craft, and creativity.

    That said, there are good uses for being an ass—, ruthless ass—-, and cunningly violent ruthless ass—. We call that war.

    But, the moral man need not be an ass, or ruthless, or cunning. He merely need speak the truth, demand it in return, and brook no imposition upon himself or others, and preform restitution to the best of his ability when he errs.

    And to use cunning and violence without being an ass—, but a hero.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 15:00:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?” IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the

    Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?”

    IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all?

    GREAT QUESTION:

    No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle.

    Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time.

    Why? Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe

    MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science.

    ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs.

    HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular.

    THE TRAP OF LITERATURE

    We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult.

    Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t).

    The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ.

    The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order.

    So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature.

    When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn.

    READ THESE INSTEAD

    Instead Consider These Instead.

    (High School Market)

    1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.)

    (College Market)

    1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money

    2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did)

    3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.

    4. Fukuyama: Trust

    5. Civilization: The West and the Rest

    (College Graduate Market)

    1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics

    2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.)

    3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible.

    Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money

    ( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric )

    1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann);

    2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek);

    3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek);

    4. Prices and Production (Hayek);

    5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell);

    6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises);

    7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk);

    8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt);

    9. Anything ever written by Garrison.

    (optional)

    Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books.

    THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE

    Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp.

    I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument.

    Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 14:43:00 UTC

  • HOPPE’S ERRORS NOW IN SPANISH !!!!! Thanks to the wonderful work of Alberto Zamb

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/21/los-errores-de-hoppe/!!!! HOPPE’S ERRORS NOW IN SPANISH !!!!!

    Thanks to the wonderful work of Alberto Zambrano, Propertariaism.com now contains The Errors of Hoppe in Spanish.

    Please thank Alberto for the work he has done for us.

    (Work he does is despite the occasional idiots that criticize anything that isn’t in english.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 14:24:00 UTC

  • Adam Voight I liked this guy’s lecture on the meaning of the Ottoman Caliphate a

    Adam Voight I liked this guy’s lecture on the meaning of the Ottoman Caliphate and the outcome of WWI.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=659f5wuTgzY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 12:43:00 UTC

  • MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we

    MESOPOTAMIA

    Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer)

    Which class emerged in control of rule?

    Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)?

    Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law?

    Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras.

    Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know.

    Here is another example.

    If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument?

    All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule.

    (btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. )

    THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society.

    These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 11:08:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Note to newbies: becuase people who lose arguments like to dele

    (from elsewhere)

    Note to newbies: becuase people who lose arguments like to delete the record of it, I tend to capture my responses here in my thread, becuase it is often in these arguments that I find new ways of saying things. So I don’t put headlines on these posts. You can read them if you are interested.

    In this one, a fellow is claiming I can’t know anything about persians because I don’t know everything about persians.

    —-

    I am extremely qualified in comparative analysis of methods of argument, information possible to convey in each argument method, and the means of deceit possible in each method, and the various means of verbal error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. I am, as far as I know, the MOST qualified person in the construction of scientific speech that provides a means of conducting due diligence against the use of the spectrum of arguments, and the use of the spectrum of deceits.

    I am also extremely qualified in comparative analysis of methods of constructing law and the consequences; the methods by which institutions laws, norms, traditions, and myths produce capital – including genetic, normative, and economic capital.

    I am also extremely qualified in comparative analysis of distributions of capital that constitute the ability to make use of different group evolutionary strategies, and how those strategies result in competitive advantage or disadvantage.

    As an analyst of your responses I can (and once I point them out, all others can) identify the techniques of deception that you attempt (unsuccessfully) to make use of.

    1 – Your arguments are reducible to “i now a secret’, but not ‘given what I know, here is how your analysis errs.’

    2 – Your argument makes use of the fallacy that knowledge of the particular is extensible to knowledge of general rules. A log of knowledge about a little thing, is a dangerous thing.

    3 – Your argument depends upon the fallacy of deliberate choice rather than mere justifications of the necessity of organizing geographic and demographic resources within the constraints provided by them.

    4 – In fact, you have made no rhetorically honest argument whatsoever, just childlike pretense of knowledge, rallying, and shaming.

    I”ll restate the argument: Nietzche never learned science or economics, or institutions, so that he could speak in existential and operational terms, but was a literary philosopher, and lacked the ideas and language with which to express his ideas in DECIDABLE language.

    The theoretical works of the persians, jews, geeks, romans, germans(french), and english constitute a spectrum of reliance upon myth, to platonism, to action, to science.

    If you want to say that in each era, the genetically named indo-iranians attempted to succeed and might have had the seleucids and the byzantines not been at war with one another, making themselves vulnerable to muslim raiders, and that Persian civilization was destroyed, along with north african, levantine, byzantines, and roman trade, then this is a legitimate argument.

    But you are still stuck with the question of why the earliest and one of the wealthiest civilization developed mysticism, and the later civilizations developed reason, stoicism, natural law, and science.

    And the explanation is exactly what I suggest it is.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    PS: you have a great deal of confidence for a person who constructs amateurish arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 10:19:00 UTC