Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • The 21st century worker has opinions. About himself, the business, and society.

    The 21st century worker has opinions. About himself, the business, and society.

    Unfortunately it is an empirically uninformed one.

    Oversing.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-16 07:27:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-16 05:12:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-16 05:11:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-16 05:10:00 UTC

  • “There are two distinct senses of ‘privatization’: (1) The government has one of

    —“There are two distinct senses of ‘privatization’:

    (1) The government has one of its traditional functions performed by private businesses rather than civil servants.

    (2) The government abandons the idea of performing some traditional

    function altogether, and leaves it to the private sector to sort things

    out.”—

    I am not sure, but i think this qualifies as a third:

    (3) a heretofore commons such as land, radio-spectrum, or seas, is sold off to the private sector in order to protect it from consumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 08:28:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RgruLhup

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 08:19:00 UTC

  • WANT TO BE DESIRED “1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with i

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/12/hookinguprealities/the-most-attractive-women-have-the-least-casual-sex/WE WANT TO BE DESIRED

    “1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness.

    “2. Very physically attractive women are more likely to form exclusive relationships than to form purely sexual relationships.

    “3. Attractive women are less likely to have sexual intercourse within the first week of meeting a partner.

    “4. Underweight and normal-weight women are more likely to report romantic experience.

    “5. Overweight women report approximately 10% more partners than normal-weight women whereas obese women report approximately 10% fewer partners.

    “6. For women the effect of being underweight on within-relationship outcomes resembles the effect of being very physically attractive.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 03:06:00 UTC

  • RIFFING ON MICHAEL PHILIP – ON THE PRICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMONS –“In the

    RIFFING ON MICHAEL PHILIP – ON THE PRICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMONS

    –“In the socialist calculation debate, Mises says socialism fails because we can’t impute prices to capital goods without prices for consumer goods and consequently we can’t rationally allocate capital across sectors. In the environmentalist calculation debate, we can’t rationally allocate an environmental price to a consumer good without having environmental prices on capital goods. In the fully Pigovean world, prices fully convey information about costs including environmental costs. Outside of that world, we probably still do best by looking only to prices as the best potential aggregation of knowable cost”– Michael Phillip

    To create a market price you have to privatize a good.

    To partly privatize a good one can limit Usus, Fructus, Mancipio and Abusus. Meaning that we can privatize the Use, Fruition and in some cases transfer (sale) of a good, without the right of Abusus (destruction or harm).

    It is not necessary to grant Abusus, or even Mancipio to create a tradable good (we don’t grant Mancipio and Abusus to ourselves when selling our labor). Privatization requires only the rights of Usus and Fructus in order for us to create prices from those trades.

    So it is a fallacy that we cannot have the best of both worlds: commons. Commons in which we privatize Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio, while retaining Abusus.

    We do not grant Mancipio and Abusus to Man, nor do we grant it to our commons. Most of our commons we grant Usus (parks). Occasionally we grant fructus (grazing on park land). But the only way to know the price of a commons is to at least grant Usus and Mancipio. And we probably, in all circumstances, should prevent Abusus.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    `

    TERMS:

    Rights of use:Usus, the fruits of:Fructus, to transfer: Mancipio, to abuse:Abusus.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/11/02/usufructs-under-propertarianism/

    H/T Ayelam Valentine Agaliba for getting me to use the right terminology.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 02:55:00 UTC

  • “This article requires a Controversy section. I came here looking for it. Surpri

    –“This article requires a Controversy section. I came here looking for it. Surprised it wasn’t included. Particularly in reference to pseudoscience in the social sciences, and on Boas as one of the most influential pseudoscientists produced by the Cosmopolitan movement. And I’m kind of surprised at the ‘heaping of unworthy praise’, and the total abandonment of the NPOV in the article. We all love our heroes, but many of our heroes turn out to be largely wrong. Marx, Freud, Boas, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard and Gould were wrong – and the consequences will be the subject of study for centuries, just as Hayek had suggested (“…the century of mysticism”) . That doesn’t mean Boas didn’t positively influence culture, but it doesn’t forgive the fact that despite his claims of empiricism, he was engaging in not just bad science, but pseudoscience (and there is a difference). And it’s only been since the beginning of the Pinker era that he’s been incrementally corrected, and at this point largely discredited. Darwin, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim each with their flaws, but producing better work. Now, I am perhaps part of a new generation of thinkers, and I am perhaps more sensitive to pseudoscience because debunking it and preventing it is one of my areas of research, but facts are facts, history is history, and Boas requires a Controversy section.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-14 18:43:00 UTC

  • Skye Stewart You made me think. Why does reading a novel ‘work’? Aside from the

    Skye Stewart

    You made me think.

    Why does reading a novel ‘work’? Aside from the truth or falsehood, good or bad measurement, why do we learn from reading narratives?

    Now, I am trying to eliminate deception in matters of public political speech – at least that kind of deception that was introduced in the 19th century by Marx, Boaz, Cantor and Freud, but expanded by Keynes and nearly the entire discipline of academic philosophy, psychology, and sociology.

    But I don’t really attack mythology and religion. And I am perfectly happy with ‘rule of thumb’ science. It doesn’t appear to matter whether something is precise, scientific, and causally explicable if it empirically produces positive ends. It matters if something produces negative ends, is immoral (imposes costs).

    So when I say that I am OK with imprecise IQ tests, personality tests, and moral tests, that is because the test data is not the output that is in question. It’s whether the individuals now possess a non-subjective means of categorization and comprehension.

    In philosophical terms, it’s epistemelogically justificationary if I were to demand a high standard of good things. When the purpose is critical instead: to demand a high standard in order to advocate bad things.

    Thanks for provoking thoughts.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-14 05:33:00 UTC