Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMEVOLUTION: THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, AND FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMONS.

    (profound idea)

    The only moral criteria I can identify is one of voluntary cooperation, and the only political criteria I can find across heterogeneous moral codes is voluntary cooperation , reflecting heterogeneous reproductive strategies. The more incompetent require mutual insurance, and the more competent require liberty. The more incompetent require socialism, the more competent require private property. The more incompetent require organization, the more competent construct the voluntary organization of production. Both the more competent and less incompetent require organized violence in both defense, and construction of the voluntary organization of production.

    There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the construction of commons, just as we have created a market for (b) the provision of goods and services, and a ‘market’ for (c)the provision of mates: marriage. But to create a market for the construction of the commons, we must give up on the monopoly of decision making that we gave up under alpha monopoly of reproduction, totalitarian monopoly of organizing agricultural production in the fertile crescent – and give up on monopoly of production of commons.

    I am quite certain that alphas could not imagine marriage and monogamy, equally certain that tyrants could not imagine the voluntary organization of production, and it is obvious that we now face the problem of the voluntary organization of commons. But whether a dramatic change in affairs is hard to imagine places little bearing upon its possibility. All that was required for marriage was the use of violence to produce reproductive choice. All that was required to create the market was the use of violence to produce productive choice. All that is required to create a market for commons is the application of violence to government, to prevent all involuntary transfers, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and socialization of losses from the organized production of commons: to transform the monopoly production of commons that we call government, to a market for the production of commons.

    Monopoly serves no purpose except involuntary transfer.

    See:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 14:35:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “CURT: WHY ARE YOU REFUTING MISES, ROTHBARD and HOPPE IF YOU ADVOCATE

    QUESTION: “CURT: WHY ARE YOU REFUTING MISES, ROTHBARD and HOPPE IF YOU ADVOCATE AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS?”

    Because Austrian Economics if stated scientifically, rather than rationally, constrains economics to moral theories and policies, and correctly repositions economics as a moral discipline: the search for institutional improvements to voluntary exchange – in the same way that I have tried to reposition science as a moral discipline: the search to speak the truth; and philosophy as the construction of meaning from the truth that we discover with science – a discipline which expressly lacks meaning (and must).

    (Note: You might want to re-read that paragraph a few times – it’s very important.)

    This is a profound transformation of multi-disciplinary intellectual history into a single, unified theory of peer-cooperation in pursuit of prosperity. And it corrects the errors inserted into the Cosmopolitan (Jewish) branch of Austrian economics by Mises (pseudoscience), and Rothbard (ghetto immorality – the absence of truth-telling), and Hoppe (German Rationalism)

    This transformation of western thought into truth-telling for the purpose of moral cooperation (voluntary exchanges among warriors of universally equal rank), explains why the west innovates and prospers at higher rates than the rest of the world, whenever it is not bound by babylonian-levantine mysticism, barbaric deception, or Asian systemic truth-avoidance: we work constantly to eliminate transaction costs and seize opportunities at lowest cost (early).

    This approach to man’s intellectual struggle correctly positions truth-telling along with trust (transaction costs), property, voluntary exchange, and contract as the necessary institutions of prosperity creation: the high trust society.

    Anglos attempted to combine science and morality – trusting man in the absence of moral authority. But anglos, were an island people without borders to defend, an homogenous in-bred people, and a heavily commercialized people. They had fewer fears. Defectors from moral norms are not a problem for an in-bred island people. There is no group to defect to.

    Germans attempted to combine philosophy and morality – a less radical transformation of religious authoritarian morality. Germans were a landed people with borders under constant question, and who were intermixed with other groups on all sides, and were not as economically diverse as the anglos and as such not as bound to trade. So, “defectors” – those who no longer pay the high cost of the normative commons, were more of a concern.

    Jewish cosmopolitan authors, an un-landed diasporic and separatist people, attempted to preserve internal rule-authoritarianism, separatism, and the parasitic value of separatist dual-ethics. They viewed host civilizations as hostile, generated separatist hostility internally by intention as a means of group cohesion, and often practiced dualist ethics that guaranteed their moral separatism.

    So each of these groups were, as all groups must, attempting to react to the enlightenment using their group evolutionary strategies: island naval and commercial, landed martial and agrarian-commercial, and un-landed, diasporic commercial.

    It is sometimes hard for us to imagine that our use of “Truth” reflects our group’s evolutionary strategy, and that many of our judgements are unconscious. But all groups use truth differently.

    Truth is unknowable and therefore merely contractual in Jewish philosophy – it is a purely pragmatic vision. In German philosophy, truth is dangerous and must be inseparable from duty, which is why all german philosophy conflates truth and duty. In anglo philosophy, truth is divine and its consequences divine – knowing the mind of god. Our duty is truth regardless of consequences, because we believe all consequences are optimum. Neo-puritanism, in the anglo world, which is the dominant postmodern philosophy in government and academy, does not practice anglo truth, but has adopted german and jewish counter-enlightenment philosophy of the sociology of knowledge and truth: truth is what we desire it to be.

    This is systematically destroying our rule of law, which has been, in the past, the source of our empiricism. The source of our science. Not the other way round. Without scientific law, we cannot have a scientific society.

    Law is the most influential property of any society because it determines what one must do, not what one prefers. As such, an un-empirical laws, is an incalculable, un-decidable, and therefore subjective law.

    The solution is to restore truth telling. To increase the scope of property to include the normative and informational commons. To use law to restore truth-telling.

    All society will adapt rapidly to this change. No authority is necessary. No leadership is necessary. No belief is necessary. No agreement is necessary. No ideology is necessary.

    It is just true, insufficient to know, or not true, and that is enough.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 13:47:00 UTC

  • YES, REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS NECESSARY —“Calling Mises pseudoscientifi

    YES, REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS NECESSARY

    —“Calling Mises pseudoscientific is the typical positivistic criticism to Austrian Economics. It adds nothing. The young Austrian economists who are pupils of Don Lavoie had been working on Popper, Lakatos, Machlup and Hayek for a long time.”—Gabriel Zanotti, Philosophy Professor at Austral University

    Gabriel

    Let me see if I can summarize the argument and put an end to rationalist obfuscation of economics:

    1) Calling science positivistic (justificationary) is a typical Rothbardian/Misesian misrepresentation of the scientific method, which is critical not justificationary.

    2) Calling a logic (axiomatic, prescriptive, complete) a science (theoretical, descriptive, incomplete) is simply false. (And adds nothing, other than casting Austrian economics as a source of ridicule). Models can be built out of axioms or laws, but all axiomatic deductions are tautologies, producing proofs of operational possibility, while all laws remain incomplete and therefore non-tautological, producing additional hypotheses, which are candidates for theories and laws. But all theoretical statements remain theoretical. The reason being that all non-tautological premises remain forever theoretical.

    3) The ‘axiom’ of purposeful human action tells us precisely nothing since it may constitute a test, but not an axiom since it tells us nothing of the scope of possible purposeful human action. We can instead say that any economic hypothesis, theory, or law, must be reducible to a sequence of rational human actions, (operations) in order to be existentially possible.

    4) This difference is why we rely upon ratio-empiricism, not rationalism, and not positivism for scientific (truthful) investigation. Logical arguments test internal consistency but not external correspndence, and external correspondence does not tell us about the internal consistency of our arguments, and without operational-intuitionistic testing (operational definitions) we cannot know if what we imagine is existentially possible. And without falsification, assuming we are both internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially possible, we have not tested our internal, external, and operational theory for parsimony – leaving open the possibility of error, bias and deception in all three.

    5) The differences between mainstream (orthodox) economics, and Austrian (heterodox) economics, are (a)that manipulation of credit is disinformation (lying) which produces cumulative effects of disinformation (lying), and (b) that as an act of disinformation (fraud), manipulation of credit produces involuntary transfers (immorality), because it lacks fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality (moral constraint).

    6) Rationalists tend to be, and by definition, must be, justificationists – they are not critical. Justification in rationalism, is indifferent from positivism in science. They are identical propositions. No matter how much justification we do, we are merely engaging in confirmation bias. Instead, it is irrelevant which method we use to construct a theory. The means of constructing a theory are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. Truth candidates (internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible, and ultimately parsimonious, yet incomplete statements) are produced by criticism: whether they survive scrutiny: testing.

    7) One *CAN* however, work through purely rational, non-positivistic processes, however, this is not to to say they are not working empirically (through observation). As far as I know this is impossible. But that does not mean they are not working ratio-empirically. It merely means that they are engaging in tests of internal consistency given current knowledge, and working using operational possibility (existential possibility), but that they are not criticizing their work through tests of external correspondence – although as far as we know, no one makes theories without tests of external correspondence, because that would mean we were not explaining economic phenomenon – which would be somewhat fruitless.

    8) This ‘Austrian’ (heterodox) investigation remains ratio-empirical, and consistent with all other scientific investigation. However, so does mainstream economics (orthodoxy). And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between mainstream and Austrian economics then, is that the mainstream seeks to lie to us, and Austrians seek to speak the truth. So the difference is not methodological – it is whether we attempt to find improvements to institutions of cooperation that retain the western principle of truth telling, or we engage in lying. Keynesian economics is dishonest, not necessarily unscientific. Austrian economics suggests only that economics must be practiced scientifically (ratio-empirically), not axiomatically or statistically: that sequences of operational possibility actions, informed by incentives, each of which is subjectively testable, is necessary to make a truth statement, while statistical correlation ignores these choices. Ergo, economics is indifferent from all other sciences: ratio-empirical discipline. The question is only whether we seek to tell the truth (Austrian) or to lie (Keynesian).

    9) And it is equally dishonest and pseudoscientific to state that an axiomatic system is identical to a theoretical system, and equally dishonest to cast mainstream economics as methodologically flawed. Particularly when Austrians have contributed nothing to the study of economics in nearly a century, while in the past twenty years alone, the orthodox community has expanded our knowledge of general rules and insight into our existing economies with regularity.

    10) The Cosmopolitan thinkers, like the german rationalists, are exceptional at this kind of deceptive conflation. A few of us think that it is a natural consequence of talumudic authoritarian dual ethics in the jewish community, and kantian authoritarian conflation of truth and duty in german philosophy. However, Mises and ROthbard and to some lesser degree Hoppe, have all tried to assert fallacies that cast the difference as possible, logical and methodological rather than as moral. Meanwhile the social democrats continue to justify the morality of takings (involuntary transfers) rather than treating every ‘taking’ as a lost opportunity for productive voluntary exchange – and therefore returning us to manorial era constraints upon the behavior of the unproductive classes that contributed to the rise of the west.

    CLOSING

    I hope this helped you understand my position. In my view I am attempting to restore Morality and truth telling to economics. But that will not be done using fallacious arguments in the rationalist tradition. It will be by demonstrating that moral action using institutions that do not engage in lying, produce superior economic conditions: greater prosperity without the fragility caused by decade after decade of institutional lying.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 13:25:00 UTC

  • Here you go. Just so I don’t forget. 🙂

    Here you go. Just so I don’t forget. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 13:13:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:55:00 UTC

  • Yes

    Yes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:54:00 UTC

  • Those who do not understand the reasons for their success will fail to repeat it

    Those who do not understand the reasons for their success will fail to repeat it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:52:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:51:00 UTC

  • RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION We know why incentivized leftists do what they

    RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION

    We know why incentivized leftists do what they do now, and mises was wrong. Its status seeking, not guilt. Guilt is interestingly more powerful in the jewish construct of man where status seeking is more powerful in western heroic vision. We know that most leftists are genetically determined, and environmentally reinforced. So if one is to deduce human behavior and incentive, one must correction understand the hierarchy of those incentives and he was incorrect.

    My goal isn’t to discredit Mises, it is to eliminate postmodern deceptions and pseudosciences. And to rescue Austrian economics from the damage done, so that I can reintroduce morality into empirical economics, requires that I demonstrate how and why mises was mistaken. The problem is that mises, like many cosmopolitans, argued pseudoscientifically. I understand now why this was done by both germans and jews of their era. But the net is that it is pseudoscientific and must be corrected or be thrown out along with every other pseudoscience. To correct it requires only that correction I have made: mises was mistaken. He had discovered operationalism (intuitionism) in economics as a test of existential possibility. But it is beyond question at this point that economic phenomenon are not deducible from has nonsense ‘axiom’. Instead, we can create theories however we wish, we can test them through criticism. Once we possess them we can create models from them. Models help us investigate the possibility of new theories. However, we must criticize (falsify) our theories to determine if they survive scrutiny. Included in these tests are internal consistency (logic) external correspondence (empirical testing), operational definition (existential possibility), parsimony (falsifiication), as well as morality (voluntary exchange/transfer). These tests warranty that we relay what exists not what we imagine, by laundering imaginary content from our imagined theories, leaving the most accurate description of phenomenon that we can measure.

    From this perspective, Misies is correct: he sought to practice moral economics (exchanges), and the mainstream adopted immoral economics(deceptions). Unfortunately he tried, as germans and jews are want to do, to conflate axiomatic truth and morality, instead of theoretical truth being necessary for the conduct of moral economics.

    This is, I think, how we rescue mises from his ostracized position in history, and restore morality to economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 03:30:00 UTC

  • I CRITICIZE ANGLOS, GERMANS AND JEWS EQUALLY. The fact that the jews were more e

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2qHQudLwJQBTW: I CRITICIZE ANGLOS, GERMANS AND JEWS EQUALLY.

    The fact that the jews were more effective in propaganda and politics than the germans, and the germans more effective in philosophy than the anglos, and the anglos more effective than both at law, commerce and war because of their territory and navy, says nothing, does not leave any group innocent.

    We all advance our group’s evolutionary strategies. It is a child’s whining to criticize others for exercising their evolutionary strategy. Instead, we must look at what we did wrong – why their strategy defeated us.

    Everyone got the enlightenment wrong somehow. The anglos used the right argument an false assumptions of man. The puritans and neo-puritans are more damaging than the jews have been. The germans the wrong argument and the right assumptions of man. But the neo-puritans and jews have run with their ideas. The jews the wrong argument, and the wrong assumptions of man. But their work is confined to pseudosicence that has been rapidly reversed since 1990 by scientists.

    My job is to state all three positions correctly, and to construct institutions that will defend the west – truth tellers – from pseudoscience, falsehoods and lies.

    And to construct institutions that require truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 16:56:00 UTC