Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government”” A

    QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government””

    ANSWER: People with similar economic interests: the monarchy (ownership of the formal institutions of government – ie: law), landed nobility (responsibility for local economies), commons (responsible for business and finance), church – the house of proletarians (responsibility for production of insurance – insurer of last resort – and all commons: care-taking).

    We had it right all along. If you cannot demonstrate sufficient interests for a higher house then you only have the interests of a lower house.

    If we conducted contractual exchanges between houses (as we did in the past) and that these contracts were constructed under common law (in the ancient sense as organic application of property rights), then we would have a vehicle for cooperation rather than government as a vehicle for conflict.

    And exchange is always welcome. an imposition or theft is not.

    The market cannot solve the provision of all goods, because the purpose of some goods is not produced through competition, nor are all goods produced producible if consumable.

    We are living a lie, and that is why government must be a venue for conflict; it is presumed to be a lie: that we are equal and of equal interest, and that as such a Pareto optimum can be found. Instead, the only known way of producing an optimum is through voluntary exchange – a Nash equilibrium.

    Like infinity, a Pareto optimum does not nor can it, exist. Something approaching Pareto optimums may evolve because we pursue Nash equilibria, but like unicorns and infinity, these are just loose ideas, to use for analogistic purposes.

    NO PROPOSITIONS ARE DECIDABLE BY PARETO OPTIMUM. Only evidence of the success or failure of our achievement of a Nash equilibrium.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:48:00 UTC

  • PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT –“Should we only promote exchanges t

    PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

    –“Should we only promote exchanges that are net Pareto improvements?”—

    I think that we should only facilitate exchanges that produce no (known) negative externalities (those which cause involuntary transfers); and that if we facilitate exchange in such a matter, we will achieve a Nash equilibrium. (as we did with monogamy, ad as we have with the market.)

    But I think a Pareto optimum is a Keynesian, Platonic, Analytic fallacy: such a thing is unknowable, and causes negative externalities no matter what we do. Our problem is not good collective decision making (the fallacy of the enlightenment) but facilitating moral exchanges between classes with heterogeneous interests – just as we do in the market.

    The problem is that we cannot produce all goods and services in the market because someone always experiences loss of opportunity. Whereas in the production of commons we are generally prohibited from the consumption or privatization of the commons – and as such the majority of effort going into the commons is to pool capital and prohibit its consumption. The incentives of the market for goods and services are the precise inverse. Competition for and consumption of commons merely prohibits their construction by disincentivizing their production. Whereas in the market, lost opportunity (or selling at a lost) is useful information that provides incentives to make better use of your own and others’ resources.

    The ‘we’ if their is to be such a thing in government, is to advocate for exchanges, not monopoly rules by which we advance the interests of some by mere majority rule.

    Each imposition by force, is a lost opportunity for exchange. Each forced imposition, constitutes a lost opportunity for exchange, which in turn is a loss of opportunity to create a moral society free of involuntary transfers.

    The only law is thou shalt not steal or cause loss, directly or indirectly. As such all political decisions are decidable. The poor can always contribute. The fallacy is that their contribution must come in in the production of goods and services, rather than in the production of the voluntary organization of production that we call morality, property rights, and the market. It also assumes that maintenance of the commons (which is what makes a place beautiful and desirable) is the province of those who engage in production of goods and services, rather than those who engage in the production of the commons both physical, and normative, and legal: the voluntary organization of production.

    Arguing otherwise is to say that someone must pay the high costs of forgoing consumption (theft, free riding, privatization, rent seeking) for permission to enter the labor force, rather than permission to participate in the market.

    We do it wrong so to speak. That does not mean we cannot do it right.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:28:00 UTC

  • IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as

    IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS

    In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as if it were a physical science, rather than **THE** science of that branch of cooperation that is unavailable to our direct perceptions, economists have in fact, introduced and imposed upon man, particularly western man, systemic immorality. This is the most immoral age. For a reason: because economists and left philosophers made it our most immoral age. And they did it with the pseudoscientific use of statistics, divorced from the actions necessary to produce economic phenomeon. Had Economists understood operationalism and testimonial truth we would not have produced the immoral century.

    But we did. And it’s my job and that of others to end it – forever.

    Economics must be the study of morality or it is the imposition of immorality.

    Unless you are an immoral advocate of theft, immorality and dysgenic then you there is no counter argument.

    (Do you see how I am correcting Mises and Hoppe yet?)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:29:00 UTC

  • AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS (reposted from economics group) (possibly

    AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS

    (reposted from economics group) (possibly profound for students of economics)

    Why Stiglitz? He is a critique of BOTH Friedman AND the neo-Keynesians. So why is he important in my view? Even if he hasn’t solve ‘the big problem’? Because there isn’t a problem to be found, or a solution in where they’re searching for one.

    THE BROADER PICTURE

    But the take away from all of the recent economic debate, is that we have not solved the Austrian question of the business cycle (does government make it worse), or the Western Conservative question of the relationship between genetics and norms, and whether **any and all economic propositions** that do not account for genetic and normative differences are false. (And dysgenic for that matter.)

    The progressive moral sentiments (female reproductive strategy – survival of offspring regardless of merit) and the conservative sentiments (male reproductive strategy – competitive families and tribes) are currently at war in politics, because by the introduction of women into the polity, the government no longer represents families with homogenous if paternal interests, but government has become a venue for the competition between not only races and classes, but also between male/meritocratic and female/dysgenic reproductive strategies.

    This is the reason for the failure of democracy: while law must be practiced with individuals, the state must be practiced with families. The introduction of women into the government rather than into their own house of government, was as destructive as the dissolution of the differences between the monarchy, landed nobility, middle class businessmen (the commons), and our failure to add a house of proletarians (dependents).

    With these two acts under the fallacy of equality of interest and ability we eliminated the possibility of government to function as a market between families with dissimilar economic interests, and instead, made it a venue for the conduct of oppression by one group of interests over another.

    There are no adequate compromises, because as structured, current economics and politics produce undecidable propositions that we mistakenly assume are a problem which further analysis will solve by providing us with pareto optimums.

    But this is an equivalent to the search for the philosopher’s stone, or the alchemical conversion of lead into gold. It is merely an exercise in collecting more data, of greater precision without adding insight.

    The fact of the matter is that the enlightenment project has been a scientific success and a political failure – we cannot improve upon the family, the market, and houses of government that conduct exchanges of commons’ between classes of different material ability and interests.

    We need not search for non-existent (platonic) Pareto Optimums. We must merely conduct exchanges needed to produce Nash equilibria that are calculable by individuals of their own volition. This will restore some eugenics to the society ad the expense of the lower classes. But that is to the benefit of all mankind even if it is not something everyone wants to hear, because it deprives them of the cheap status signal of looking down upon others and feeling higher by the mere existence of the inferior and unfortunate, rather than having to take risks and actions necessary to produce something by their own ability and hands.

    There is nothing for economists to discover except this principle.

    (I’ll be here waiting having tea with Hegel, when they do.)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    RANKINGS OF ECONOMISTS

    Ranking of economists by citation.

    https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.nbcites.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:17:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Who is more prominent economist?” (E.S.L. Question) Economist? I am a

    QUESTION: “Who is more prominent economist?” (E.S.L. Question)

    Economist?

    I am always unsure what people are referring to. Today that label largely refers to an econometrician, the way mathematics refers to a mathematician: as a methodologist. But I think when we ask most questions of economics, we are asking about who is the best political economist, or social scientist, because econometrics (measurement) is really not all that interesting except as a methodology for addressing one of the following domains:

    …………………………………….Mathematician………………………………

    ………………………………………………|………………………………………….

    …………………………………….Econometrician………………………………

    ………………………………………………|………………………………………….

    Political Economist…………………..|………………..Monetary Analyst.

    Social Scientist………………………..|………………..Financial Analyst.

    Legal Philosopher…………………….|………………..Investor……………

    Public Intellectual…………………….|………………..Entrepreneur…….

    There are a very small number of econometricians contributing to each of the above domains. If we look at citations it’s surprising how small the number is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 04:59:00 UTC

  • (I never did homework that I couldn’t do in class. I never took notes. I never s

    (I never did homework that I couldn’t do in class. I never took notes. I never studied. I read books. I listened. I answered questions. It’s actually anarchistic temperament: I am uninterested in your evaluation of me, I am only interested in my evaluation of my improvement from yesterday to today, and that I make that improvement every day. And my experience is that I make that improvement with or without you. So if you are a good and interesting speaker than you are making good use of my time, and if not then you are not. I chose college classes by the textbooks the professors chose. I read the textbooks for all my classes by the end of the first week of class. I usually lost interest in the class within the first third of its duration. Just how it is. I read. Reading is enough. reading a lot defeats practice on any memorization or any rule. Read more, exercise more, teach less.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:38:00 UTC

  • (Hotel humor. If she was mine, I’d have to leave her. Or stick a sock in her mou

    (Hotel humor. If she was mine, I’d have to leave her. Or stick a sock in her mouth.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:32:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    I use autistic speech myself. I have to work, not to. If I am ill or tired, then forget it. I don’t have a choice. It is a technical description of the relationship between meaning, analogy and grammar just as poetic is. In autistic speech we intuit systematic and often valid relations between concepts, but lack the means to verbally express those relations in normative vocabulary and grammar – and a such we leave these verbal fragments open for deductive association for others; just as we leave them open for deductive association for ourselves, because deductive association is sufficient for us even if we lack vocabulary and grammar. (in other words there is a pretty vast delta between what we consider spatial reasoning or perhaps better said, non-verbal reasoning, and verbal facility or what we call verbal intelligence.)

    Idea generation for me is a trivial exercise. It’s purely intuitive – I fill my mind with information and just let my mind’s obsession with order do its work. In this sense, I don’t really ‘work’ at solving problems. (In fact I have to insulate myself a bit to make sure I am only exposed to so many at a time.)

    But the act of transforming those ideas into normal, rational, and scientific speech is a brutally challenging act of discipline. I can articulate ideas not because it is natural to me, but because I have spent my adult life, actively attempting to retain my autistic intuition while learning how to express that intuition in rational terms.

    Propertarianism solved the problem of autistic speech for me because it is unloaded. ( non normative, descriptive ethics). Propertarianism may be nothing more than the deterministic result of the need for developing a system of speech for articulating highly correspondent phenomenon i causal rather than normative, experiential and allegorical terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:31:00 UTC

  • stories, plays, movies, video games, mmp games, immersive mmp games

    stories, plays, movies, video games, mmp games, immersive mmp games….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:03:00 UTC

  • IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING? And isn’t aristocracy

    IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING?

    And isn’t aristocracy familial paternalism, tribal paternalism, national paternalism?And isn’t the suppression of lying a parental, communal, and aristocratic necessity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 02:58:00 UTC