Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 20:03:00 UTC

  • Adding new features to Oversing. Having a blast. Refactoring a bit. Making class

    Adding new features to Oversing.

    Having a blast.

    Refactoring a bit.

    Making classes for the panels.

    The workspace is kind of ingenious.

    Just should be organised better.

    Leak is gone on the server but still a little locally related to websockets. It should follow the gmail method of extending the polling time in Fibonacci or geometric rather than constant.

    Haven’t coded full time in a long time and so I keep mixing syntax from different languages but it’s getting there.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 16:01:00 UTC

  • Apparently I wrote 21000 words on fb last week. Why does that knowledge bother m

    Apparently I wrote 21000 words on fb last week.

    Why does that knowledge bother me?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:45:00 UTC

  • Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision M

    Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision

    Myth (narrative analogy)

    Internally consistent myth ( religion )

    Reason ( possibility )

    Rationalism. ( justificationism )

    Analytic rationalism. ( Consistency )

    Existential criticism ( Operationalism)

    You see. In hindsight it’s obvious.

    It wasn’t though 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:37:00 UTC

  • In most cases, you have power because people want you to have it

    In most cases, you have power because people want you to have it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:25:00 UTC

  • LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS RENDERING ROTHBARDIANISM INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING A SHO

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/

    RENDERING ROTHBARDIANISM INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/

    A SHORT COURSE IN THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/02/04/a-short-course-in-the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/

    THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/23/the-only-means-of-eliminating-the-state-and-constructing-liberty/

    THE MORALITY AND VIRTUE OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/22/the-virtue-of-organized-violence/

    PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ONLY ACQUIRABLE BY VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/22/the-honesty-of-violence/

    LIBERTY IS UNNATURAL – IT IS CREATED BY ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/03/09/liberty-isnt-inherent-its-unnatural-we-create-it-with-organized-violence/

    REVOLUTION REQUIRES THAT WE ABANDON ALL HOPE IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT: DEMOCRACY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/revolution-requires-only-that-we-abandon-all-hope/

    FRAGILITY: IT’S EASIER THAN EVER TO REVOLT

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/fragility-its-easier-than-ever-to-revolt/

    CLOSING: ONE BITE AT A TIME

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/propertarianism-for-new-friends-one-bite-at-a-time/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:14:00 UTC

  • GAME OF THRONES IS OVER? IF YOU AREN”T WATCHING PREACHER ON AMC NOW YOU SHOULD B

    GAME OF THRONES IS OVER? IF YOU AREN”T WATCHING PREACHER ON AMC NOW YOU SHOULD BE.

    (good stuff)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 14:06:00 UTC

  • PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF. Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is n

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/992320.shtmlCHINESE PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF.

    Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is not a very Chinese thing to do) and truthful (which is also not a very Chinese thing to do), and state that while it is in the Chinese military INTEREST to claim the south china sea is it’s territory – because the south china sea is the strategic means of starving out the Chinese in case of war – the fact remains that many OTHER nations had PREVIOUS claims on this same territory and China STOLE IT FROM THEM.

    Now China could say (maybe) that it was a previous possession of some sort, but then by the same logic the USA could say that if the Chinese have such claims to previous state’s property then they ALSO have responsibilities for previous state DEBTS. And the Chinese owe Americans TRILLIONS of dollars now that were unpaid by the previous government.

    It is a very Chinese habit to lie. Lying is a part of the culture. Delay, deceit, and lying are the primary strategy of the Chinese when dealing with other peoples and often with themselves. Lying and deceit are raised to the status of ‘good manners’ by the art of ‘face’ (denial of reality).

    So please forgive us in the West – those of us who have built a high trust society because by and large we try to speak truthfully even when we are foolishly optimistic – if we do not take any Chinese words very seriously.

    The fact of the matter is that china used ‘aggression’ to capture territory of other neighboring nations that were too weak to resist, and by that aggression, has stolen that which was the property of others.

    So if we are not making moral arguments any longer we are only making arguments to strategic necessity, then given china’s murderous record against even its own people, we should not take a moral stance either, and we should prevent china from taking control of this territory which would make it possible for one of the world’s most dishonest and murderous people to extend their reach beyond their coast line.

    Right?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:47:00 UTC

  • WHAT DID MISES GET WRONG BUT ALMOST RIGHT? Oliver Westcott, Edward Gotham (And a

    WHAT DID MISES GET WRONG BUT ALMOST RIGHT?

    Oliver Westcott, Edward Gotham (And anyone else who cares)

    In 2014 I created a facebook page for Scientific Praxeology (rather than pseudoscientific praxeological science) and posted the majority of my work from that year on the subject together as a set of articles for anyone to read.

    I do not really know if this is tough going or not. I don’t really think so, but I am the wrong person to ask.

    But if you want to know, here it is.

    Mises’ position in intellectual history is the same as almost every other intellectual in economics at the beginning of the 20th century: they all failed to rescue us from the pseudoscientific movement and pseudoscientific socialism and pseudoscientific keynesianism.

    Popper, Mises, Hayek, Brouwer, Bridgman, and many others came close but just could not do it.

    But it can be done.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:03:00 UTC

  • ELI ON THE RATIONAL RISK PURSUIT AND AVERSION OF GENDERS —” While there certai

    ELI ON THE RATIONAL RISK PURSUIT AND AVERSION OF GENDERS

    —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant.

    That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

    Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe.

    So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties.

    The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks.

    But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptable to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 08:15:00 UTC