Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make fal

    Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.

    Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership.

    Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:39:00 UTC

  • Women exist as our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and friends. In that capac

    Women exist as our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and friends. In that capacity we are equal. But in politics and war women are as incapable as men are of conception and birth. And it is more likely that men will give birth than women will demonstrate capability in politics and war. Dependence upon female defense of communal capital is as suicidal as dependence upon male bearing of offspring.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:30:00 UTC

  • MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits hi

    MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL

    Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation.

    Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:28:00 UTC

  • I wish the queen could take the risk of dissolving parliament and suggesting to

    I wish the queen could take the risk of dissolving parliament and suggesting to the people that the existing parties no longer represent their interests, and that they should form new parties that do so.

    The parties represent a non existent structure of family, production, and commons.

    H/t Christopher Hitchens

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 10:52:00 UTC

  • ( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from severa

    ( recorded here )

    This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.

    But I can’t do an adequate job from an iPhone.

    Ill make a few points to start you thinking.

    First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.

    Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.

    Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.

    This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.

    What does this mean?

    It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate.

    So Mises had it backwards. All sciences require empirical observation oto capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth clams must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence.

    The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon.

    I could go on at length here but this should be enough.

    IN CLOSING:

    It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion.

    We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method.

    My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit.

    That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious.

    Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 10:24:00 UTC

  • Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The differen

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. GIven that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

    The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outast’s one’s lifetime ,and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 08:02:00 UTC

  • The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of th

    The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of the population voting. Why? because the size of the population increases the diversity of interests. And because democracy allows us only to choose between priorities from within common interest – it’s a monopolistic means of choosing which commons to produce. So when we increase in scale, we require markets to conduct exchanges between different common interests, not monopolies, to ignore our uncommon interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 05:55:00 UTC

  • trading only in ‘goods’, and not ‘bads’, only makes sense, right?

    trading only in ‘goods’, and not ‘bads’, only makes sense, right?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 05:51:00 UTC

  • “Leftist, Facebook virtue-signaling, bed-wetting, mom’s basement dwellers” “Scot

    “Leftist, Facebook virtue-signaling, bed-wetting, mom’s basement dwellers”

    “Scotland’s main exports are mediocre whiskey and heroine addicts.”

    “Who knew that calling people racist repeatedly would’t work?”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 05:44:00 UTC

  • “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast” Doolittle: Man

    “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast”

    Doolittle: Man is a purely rational actor having to constantly choose between the short personal gratification at the expense of others and long term gratification through cooperation with others. With the optimum solution for both short and long term is to achieve personal perfection without causing retaliation by others that would destroy those ambitions.

    Most of us struggle in one way or another with the constant problem of achievement without causing retaliation (rejection, resistance, restitution, punishment).

    And at the same time we struggle with internal impulse and the impatient desire to achieve our ends and the frustration of having to worry about others rather than only the self.

    Nietzche uses romantic, poetic, narrative language to make this rather boring statement of cooperative economics. But by using that ancient primitive poetic language he fails to inform us as to the cause. And given that cause how to succeed.

    Hence why I say that Nietzche and propertarianism are compatible. The question is WHICH IS MORE ACTIONABLE? Read him for inspiration and integration with your soul. Choose Propertarianism as the means of achieving it.

    In retrospect I see my work as succeeding where spencer failed. We had Darwin and Nietzche, but because of competition from the ‘new age’ provided by marx economically pseudoscientifiic and immoral Marx and immoral and correlative pseudoscientific keynes, the generation that included Spencer, pareto, weber and durkheim, and the generation that included Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, and Bridgman all failed.

    THey failed for the same reason the Greeks failed: they worked from the position of virtue and morality (contribution to commons) instead of simply grasping the reductio simplicity of man: we are all rational actors and choose cooperation when beneficial, and non-cooperation when it is beneficial, and we judge all our actions by the cost vs the likely return, given our experience. Man is not moral per se, he just evolved intuitions to assist him if he DOES wish to act morally because it is in his interest, and he must be cautioned that he will incur retaliation if he acts immorally by imposing costs upon others.

    So we understand man’s behavior as purely rational, and moral intuitions as warnings that we are likely to incurr retaliation for our actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 03:02:00 UTC