Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CURT ON THE UNGRATEFUL OPPRESSED If you think you are oppressed, then let me int

    CURT ON THE UNGRATEFUL OPPRESSED

    If you think you are oppressed, then let me introduce you to some of my ancestors. They thought of it as ‘settling’, ‘civilizing’ or ‘conquering’. And the fact is that getting settled, civilized and conquered by them was a pretty good thing compared to some of the alternatives. So if you really think that your current state is unjust, then I think it’s perhaps time to remind you what ‘unjust’ can be.

    Besides. If we don’t. Others will do it in our stead.

    Because you’re a dead end.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 13:58:00 UTC

  • ELI ON THE UNGRATEFUL “OPPRESSED”

    ELI ON THE UNGRATEFUL “OPPRESSED”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 13:36:00 UTC

  • test message delete me

    test message delete me

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 10:38:00 UTC

  • AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION. It really doesn’t matte

    AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION.

    It really doesn’t matter what an author says or intends. What matters is whether its true or not- and I do not mean internally consistent, I mean externally correspondent. In the sense that logical conclusions can be and must be drawn from any set of statements. and that the author’s ‘way of thinking’ is either correspondent with reality or not. Most of the time, it’s not. That’s what separates pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism from truth telling (science).

    When we roll a bag of conceptual marbles down the hill, we do not control them – reality does. When we roll our sentences into the public it does not matter what we say or how we say it but whether what we say is true and truthful.

    Nothing marx, freud and rothbard say for example, is truthfully expressed. So we cannot judge an author by his own terms, but on whether his arguments are operationally possible in reality, regardless of what he means, intends, or portends.

    Meaning is a great way to lie. Which is useful in myths and religious dogma. It was useful in pseudosciences. It was useful in the fallacy of psychologizing. It was useful by the postmoderns. It is useful in all public speech. But it is just a perfect vehicle for lying.

    I run into this all the time, when criticizing certain authors. My favorite is still the typical economist’s reply that ‘we don’t concern ourselves with that’.

    Which makes me crazy because they do affect that which they claim to ignore, without admitting that it is precisely what they ignore that allows them to justify their work.

    Marx is better though. Best. Liar.Ever.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 08:00:00 UTC

  • TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM (getting very close now) The Question: How do we war

    TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM

    (getting very close now)

    The Question:

    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    0) Sensible (intuitively possible)

    1) Meaningfully expressible ( as an hypothesis )

    2) Internally consistent and falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)

    3) Externally correspondent and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)

    4) Existentially possible (operationally construct-able/observable)

    5) Voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)

    6) Market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) Market irrefutable (law)

    8) Irrefutable under original experience (Perceivable Truth)

    9) Ultimately parsimonious description (Analytic Truth)

    10) Informationally complete and tautologically identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    OUR WARRANTY IS:

    I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    CRITICISM OF INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    Things can’t ‘be’ true, we can only speak/write truthfully.

    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 07:53:00 UTC

  • THERE IS PLENTY OF ARISTOCRACY LEFT There is plenty of aristocracy around left t

    THERE IS PLENTY OF ARISTOCRACY LEFT

    There is plenty of aristocracy around left to repopulate senates, houses and thrones. First, even in all of the west, it’s a small number of people in total. Second, having a long (low) time preference isn’t rocket science either. It’s mostly genetics and family habits. Nobility – traditionalists and historians – are around if you look for them. The purpose of nobility is to judge – not lead. Leadership is for priests and public intellectuals. Nobility just limits the arena to commerce and construction of commons – not political power.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 05:13:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: A Philosophy for Adults

    Propertarianism: A Philosophy for Adults.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 04:49:00 UTC

  • AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED The progressive

    AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED

    The progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).

    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.

    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.

    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.

    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 04:46:00 UTC

  • RIGHT IN FRANCE: DEPORT EN MASSE

    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361790018/a-french-best-sellers-radical-argument-vichy-regime-wasnt-all-badNEW RIGHT IN FRANCE: DEPORT EN MASSE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 15:28:00 UTC

  • My latest post: Neoreaction notices Propertarianism

    My latest post:

    Neoreaction notices Propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 13:57:00 UTC