We have 1.1M lawyers in america. That’s one for every 300 people. Ukraine needs about 8,000 judges (1/5000 people), and about 20,000 lawyers (1/2000) people.
It’s not a complicated problem. Rule of law is all you need.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 08:14:00 UTC
(worth repeating)
—“Like I keep saying, the Anglos were wrong but argued truthfully; the germans were right but argued untruthfully; and the Jews were wrong and agued untruthfully. What I struggle to do, is to state the german proposition truthfully.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 05:27:00 UTC
L’viv is so beautiful in the snow.
Europa, please return to us.
Enough of us love you.
We promise.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 03:50:00 UTC
EVERY REDISTRIBUTED DOLLAR IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE
The central argument that I have against Social Democracy (Keynesian economics or dishonest socialism) is not the exacerbation of the business cycle, nor even redistribution, but that it is a means of violating a voluntary exchange between the productive and unproductive classes. Every forcibly redistributed dollar is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial and productive exchange. And what the productive classes would prefer in exchange, is largely respect for norms, respect for commons, and status signaling. Conservatives certainly don’t disfavor redistribution, they disfavor funding immorality. Most of us would be very happy to directly pay people who behave well, and not pay people who don’t, and to avoid the entire bureaucratic expansion caused by redistribution in services rather than income.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 14:07:00 UTC
http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women-should-not-be-allowed-to-voteWell, sorta.
WHY DOES CURT POST THIS STUFF?
Because I want to show how (a) democracy is a catastrophe, and (b) that we need a government of exchanges not of majority rule.
Democracy (majority rule) did not represent men, it represented the absolute nuclear family. The family is paternal revolution made possible by property and property rights, but it suppressed women’s natural desire to push responsibility for her offspring on the tribe. In other words, suppression of female behavior was necessary for the development of civilization.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 10:58:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 06:43:00 UTC
The study of words is authoritarian. A search for conquest of others. I would convert philosophy back to the study of actions – liberty, innovation, creativity, adaptation..
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 05:10:00 UTC
OUR HEROIC WESTERN STRUGGLE GOES ON
(worth repeating)
—“Our struggle goes on. The constant struggle to resist the seduction that the rest of the world fell into – the comfort of lies. **The seduction by the words of priests, public intellectuals, and politicians, rather than adaptation to the actions of heroes.** Because truth, trust, production, and commons are the west’s competitive advantage against the untruthful, untrusting, unproductive, and parasitic peoples.”—
We drag the world behind us – kicking and screaming. And nothing is more heroic or aristocratic than this ultimate form of paternalism.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 05:08:00 UTC
REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF PROPERTARIANISM
Now that I have shown that:
1) Science is a name for the discipline of truthfully speaking, regardless of subject;
2) And that physical science merely ignores cost and morality (making it easier to speak the truth against political convention); but that cost and morality can be added to the method of truthfully speaking – yielding the universal means of warrantable, insurable, and therefore truthful speech.
3) And that all disciplines must adhere to the art of truthful speech for their statements to be warrantable (and therefore their work products distributable);
I must now return to one of the arguments the Critical Rationalist group attacked me with such hostility for:
4) That the epistemic cycle of the scientific method is the universal method, and that consumers producers, engineers, and scientists merely attribute preferential value to different inputs and outputs of that methodological process. But this process is the universal method that man has evolved and must follow. And somehow I must find a way of talking about that so that it’s not so confusing. And I think that way of talking requires a few pictures.
5) That if we account for costs and morality, then justification is no longer illogical, but merely an earlier, lower-cost, technology – just as repetition and imitation were earlier least-cost technologies, just as memory, was the lowest possible cost technology after genetic memory (evolution).
IF ONLY THEY HAD LISTENED TO WEBER
Mises got his idea of economic calculation from Weber, and Weber was right – as he was about many things. Which is why Minsky is ‘right’ – which Ludwig van den Hauwe managed to get through my rather thick skull this weekend with his new paper on crises. I had never paid Minsky much attention, but he is closer to an operational analysis of the problem than the Austrians were. So I’m going to have to revisit Weber, Poincaré, Schumpeter, and Minsky and see if I can put the problem of calculability in terms familiar to the history of economic thought.
And maybe then I can work on calculability, law, and constitutions.
I DON’T THINK ONE CAN IMPROVE MUCH ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
I think the improvements are in warranty (falsification), and in insurance (law), which will assist us in preventing error, bias and deception.
BECAUSE WE CANNOT TOLERATE ANOTHER CHRISTIANIZATION, COUNTER ENLIGHTENMENT(RATIONALISM), PSEUDOCIENTIFIC CONQUEST(COSMOPOLITANISM), OR POSTMODERN/NEO-PURITANIZATION SUICIDE OF THE WEST.
Our struggle goes on. The constant struggle to resist the seduction that the rest of the world fell into – the comfort of lies.
**The seduction by the words of priests rather than adaptation to the actions of heroes.**
Because truth, trust, production, and commons are the west’s competitive advantage against the untruthful, untrusting, unproductive, and parasitic peoples.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 05:06:00 UTC
QUESTIONS OF THE DAY
1) What is the difference between the concepts “WARRANTIED” and “TRUE”?
2) And why would you choose or evolve a normative preference for one or the other?
(This is a deceptively profound question.)
Continuation of Yesterday’s Question:
—“So we warranty a recipe for performance, and we warranty a theory for due diligence. And some seekers of truth propositions (scientists), or what appears to be most scientists, warranty certain properties of a theory, and not others. Of course, my objective is ethical, moral, legal, political and economic theory which is almost entirely devoid of warranty, if not entirely devoid of warranty.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 04:39:00 UTC