Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “

    —“Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “—

    Words consist of names (extant observable), experiences (unobservable, extant), allegories(unobservable in-extant). Words can be used to convey truth, or meaning, or truth and meaning, or falsehood and meaning. If I speak in names, (operational descriptions are unique just as positional numbers are unique) then I can speak in names of extant entities. Otherwise nothing else is observable. It is very hard to err, lie, or add imaginary content.

    Conversely if I speak in analogies and allegories, I can convey meaning to those with asymmetric information (less), but I can also load and frame that meaning, and with effort, overload our reason (via suggestion). And if I speak in analogies I cannot make a truth claim. What I **CAN** do is first convey meaning by analogy, then restate the idea operationally, and convey truth. And this is, it turns out, the only honest way of conveying understanding truthfully.

    So, as an example of deception and error, your statement that I relied upon the category ‘words’ was dishonest, when my argument relied upon the category ‘analogies’.

    –“You deny that distinctly human minds have a logical structure.”–

    Well aside from the fact that ‘mind’ is the name of an experience that requires time to produce changes in state, and brain is the name of the extant organ, this is a very poor sentence, but I will try to repair it by restating it as: the acts of daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing demonstrate that humans are capable of the practice of logical argument. Therefore humans are capable of logical thought.

    Now, again, you have used fuzzy language to make a dishonest statement. Instead, what I have said is that the capacity of humans to perceive, remember, compare, and judge is extremely limited, and that we must rely upon instrumentation both logical and physical to assist us in all but the most trivial of comparisons. (I don’t know how it is possible to refute this.) I have furthermore stated that language, unless operationally articulated, is so imprecise that error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking and the addition of imaginary content, that reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth (stated in e-prime for that matter) is not only insufficient a technology for the prevention of error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking, and the addition of imaginary content, but that if we look at the evidence throughout history, the primary function of rationalism is to justify, deceive, frame, and overload, and that humans do not seem to be easily able to detect errors when communication takes place in this method.

    So your entire paragraph on rationalism is an example of how one can attempt to use reason to justify the black or white fallacy: that you levy an accusation of denying that the capacity to reason logically, exists, when I merely state that the capacity to reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth is extremely limited, (as evidenced by the failure of your own argument), and that is after accusing me of saying that reason cannot be used for honest discourse, rather than the fact that the vast majority of lies, deceptions and fallacies have been created using rationalism.

    —“But a method of doing the natural sciences is not the only logic that, in a pragmatic sense, has succeeded in helping humankind achieve progress. The logic of the classical economists has also succeeded. “—

    I stated that it is extremely hard to lie, cheat, steal, add imaginary content, frame, load, overload, and err, using the scientific method as constituted in empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth. But it is very easy to conduct a dishonest argument that postulates straw men, and black or white fallacies using rationalism.

    The data suggests that the only reason to rely upon rationalism is to lie. That is because most liars rely upon rationalism. The reason scientists rely upon the method (more accurately as empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth), is because it is harder to err, bias and lie. So if any given argument can be conducted both in the language of liars, and in in the language of truth tellers, then why would one defend use of the language of liars?

    The most troubling thing about rationalism, is that it does not help correct those people who are telling lies, but who are not desirous of lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 08:42:00 UTC

  • MARXISM AND CATHOLIC IDEALISM – INFORM PROPERTARIANISM —“How did the Communist

    MARXISM AND CATHOLIC IDEALISM – INFORM PROPERTARIANISM

    —“How did the Communists capture one-third of the world’s population by 1950, given the fact that Lenin had only a handful of followers in 1900?”– Gary North from Douglas Hyde

    —“Few people join [movements] because their founders developed philosophically persuasive systems of historical cause-and-effect. They join because the movements promise moral uplift personally and even moral reform culturally”—Gary North from Douglas Hyde

    Note: But motive is different from content, is different from long term result. Just because people join movements for moral reasons, does not mean that movements predicated upon philosophically persuasive systems, or even systems of scientific laws, which can persist over the long term, by surviving as formal institutions, cannot easily be present in equal parts in any movement. It is only that the latter is harder than the former to construct.

    –“…a statistically abnormal number of communists he had met on several continents had this in common: They were lapsed Catholics. Why? Because of their idealism. The Church failed to appeal to this idealism, especially among youth. So, they departed into the camp of the enemy.”— Gary North from Douglas Hyde

    NOTE: He doesn’t have this quite right. Why do they have such idealism? … Heroism, and Chivalry as means of demonstrating heroism. Catholics. Idealists. ( Don Finnegan this is why we haven’t figured it out: it’s “idealism as an act of chivalry”. )

    —” when organizations make minimal demands on their members, they get minimal commitment. When they make big demands, they get big commitment.”— Gary North from Douglas Hyde

    (This is also born out by all research that I have been able to find. Aristocratic Egalitarianism places great demands upon the individual to secure freedom for himself and for others. Because he must both fight for those who offer to enter into the aristocratic contract, and demand truth, truthfully stated, or punish liars for pollution of the commons (theft from the commons).

    (Propertarianism places additional intellectual burdens on members, who must master non trivial forms of argument, and employ that non-trivial form of argument whenever and wherever they encounter arguments not stated truthfully, and they must educate anyone who desires to conduct those same arguments. Operationalism and Testimonial truth are merely difficult arguments to master, and the number of those who can master them is limited.)

    –“…successful long-term leadership requires systematic training. The Communist Party was careful to provide such training at all levels. Everyone was trained to

    exercise leadership in his appropriate field.”–

    Obvious. In all organizations. Everywhere. Throughout all time. Until you can institute nomocracy under property rights that prohibit all parasitism, and therefore eliminate demand for the state by all but the most immoral of men. Monopolies must create institutional order, before polyopolies can maintain an institutional order.

    —fin—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 20:46:00 UTC

  • feminist argument. Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of acc

    http://slnm.us/99c9qj9False feminist argument.

    Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of access to sex and affection.

    Self esteem is a Freudian psychologism – meaning a deception.

    All emotional states can be described as economic transitions. And only by describing emotional states as economic transactions are arguments free of deceptive loading and framing.

    Men trade production and defense, and to some degree physical manipulation and transformation of the world for sex and affection.

    The relative value in exchange, of a man’s productivity declines with any marginal increase in his mate’s productivity.

    His brain chemistry punishes him so that he increased his productivity, thereby restoring his value, or he must search for a new mate for whom his productivity is likely to retain his access to sex and affection.

    This explanation is born out by the data in all walks of life.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 19:27:00 UTC

  • RETURNS AS THE DOMINANT POLITICAL SYSTEM – BUT WHY? NUCLEAR WEAPONS? It appears

    http://www.quora.com/Why-do-Nepalese-Maoists-want-ethnicity-based-federalism-in-Nepal-Will-ethnicity-based-politics-do-any-good-to-the-country-in-the-long-run/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1NATIONALISM RETURNS AS THE DOMINANT POLITICAL SYSTEM – BUT WHY? NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

    It appears that the universalists program advocated by the enlightenment is unsuccessful and that nationalism (tribalism at scale), will return to its historical status as the dominant political ideology.

    This is in part because the value of scale in obtaining credit necessary to finance war has been nearly eliminated by the (strange) influence of nuclear weapons. If a country can afford nuclear weapons it does not need to engage in large scale defense projects, because its boundaries are secure. Conversely (as Mr Putin has demonstrated) a country without nuclear weapons cannot claim sovereignty.

    SO just as credit, conscription, and ‘total war’ defined the past five hundred years, it appears that nuclear weapons, and small scale nationalism which better serves the interests of citizens, will replace empires and military-credit-industrialism.

    Hence, oddly enough, nuclear weapons end up having produced intuitive political orders.

    Strange but true.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 18:41:00 UTC

  • IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BIG BUSINESS? (The word ‘app

    http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appropriate-role-and-amount-of-government-regulation-of-businesses/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BIG BUSINESS?

    (The word ‘appropriate’ is a form of linguistic dishonesty that attempts to create a moral statement where none exists.)

    Instead, the question is whether a MONOPOLY (in this case, the government), that is insulated from prosecution under the law (bureaucrats), and insulated from market pressures (competition), is superior to a POLYPOLY, in which all members are subject to prosecution under the law (citizens) and subject to market pressures (competition).

    The general theory is that monopolies are necessary to START regulation (government), but that once instituted that competing institutions subject to rule of law are superior to democratic and political influences (politicians, corruption, oligarchies), because each individual everywhere in society, if he holds legal standing under universal standing, is capable of policing the regulators.

    The problem we have in government is that we cannot police the regulators ,and the implication that voting is a proxy for lawsuits is empirically false.

    As such, removal of corporate protections and extension of liability to all employees of all organizations, and the granting of universal standing, and the requirement that anyone we would consider needing regulation be insured, allows us to construct competing insurance companies that replace corrupt monopoly bureaucracies in government as means of regulation.

    SO it is not the degree of regulation that is the question, but whether regulation should be performed by monopolies or polypolies. And the answer is that most regulations must be legally imposed by the monopoly we call government, by requiring private insurance, and that the entire population is both responsible for and capable of policing those companies AND their insurers.

    It should be fairly obvious that POLOPOLY under NOMOCRACY is a superior means of regulation because it eliminates the possibility of corruption endemic to monopolies. And equally obvious that the market will seek the level of regulation necessary for insurers and producers to defend themselves from activist citizens intent on controlling them by limiting them moral actions.

    It is less obvious that it is government sanction of corruption and government delivery of regulation that is the cause of illicit business activity, precisely because during the early industrial revolution, governments who were envious of collecting new tax revenues granted protections to private businesses and removed the public’s common law ability to regulate such businesses.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 18:12:00 UTC

  • ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY? (I can’t fig

    http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-assumptions-of-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-utility/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1WHAT ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY?

    (I can’t figure out if this is an honest question or some moron’s bot-work.)

    The only assumption in marginal utility is that it is a general rule of arbitrary precision like all general rules must be constructed of arbitrary precision by logical necessity.

    So as far as I know, no assumptions external to the construction of ALL general theories are present in marginal utility. It is just that the distribution of particulars under social sciences are wider that n the distribution of particulars in the physical sciences: man learns. Hydrogen does as hydrogen is, and that’s the end of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:58:00 UTC

  • UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH : IT WASN”T PLATO – IT WAS GERMANS AND COSMOPOLITANS Questio

    UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH : IT WASN”T PLATO – IT WAS GERMANS AND COSMOPOLITANS

    Question: “Was Karl Popper right to blame Plato’s concept of the philosopher king for the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century?”

    Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute.

    No. Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions. His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists. Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion), and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god, to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment.

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability.

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum.

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans.

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority. These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use.

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:46:00 UTC

  • MUCH MORE CAPITALIST IS AMERICA THAN GERMANY *Capitalism: the voluntary organiza

    http://www.quora.com/How-much-more-capitalist-is-the-US-than-Germany/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1HOW MUCH MORE CAPITALIST IS AMERICA THAN GERMANY

    *Capitalism: the voluntary organization of consumer production. (Liberty)

    *Socialism: the involuntary organization of consumer production. (Totalitarianism)

    *Mixed Economy: the voluntary organization of consumer production, and the involuntary redistribution of the rewards earned by organizing consumer production. (A trade-off between liberty and totalitarianism).

    Socialism is impossible, since neither the incentives to produce, nor the means of economic calculation are possible. The only possible means of organizing production that produces surpluses is to provide both individual incentives and the means of rational calculation for pursuing those incentives.

    This means that the only possible means of organizing production that is adaptive to changes in the world (wants and scarcities) is capitalism. This is why the entire world has adopted capitalism (the voluntary organization of consumer production).

    However, the entire world has also adopted mixed economy consumer capitalism: that is, the authoritarian regulation and taking of the rewards from the voluntary organization of production, for the purpose of redistribution (By licit or illicit means, for licit or illicit purposes.)

    So the entire world practices capitalism and none of the world practices socialism. Instead, the whole world practices mixed economy capitalism by taking the maximum amount that they can extract from the organizers of production without disrupting the organization of production.

    Now, the difference between the USA and Germany is such:

    1) germans are less diverse (more homogeneous) and homogeneous societies (see scandinavia) are comfortable with redistribution (sacrifice of my family and children and subsequent generations) for the service of yours. However, diverse polities are not comfortable with sacrificing for their competitors, any more than germans are happy redistributing to Turks, or mediterranean cultures that are lazier and more corrupt. America by contrast has an old historical problem of diversity of many peoples, and self reliance. The more diverse a people the less tolerance for redistribution.

    2) America is not comparable to Germany per se, but to Europe in total. There are 50 American states, and no less than 9 or 10 american regional cultures, and just as brussels is perceived as a dictatorship the american government is perceived as a dictatorship by the central and southern peoples of the american continent, that works for the advantage of the high population centers of immigrants on the coastal areas.

    As such Germany is both more homogenous, smaller, and more likely to redistribute, (over the objections of the south), while America is larger, more diverse, and less willing to redistribute. The reason is that germans are not competitors for power with one another (mostly) but american regions are at war with one another using the government as a proxy.

    For these reasons Germany is less an advocate of a mixed economy than say California or New York, but more so than say Iowa, Georgia and Alaska.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:35:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 17:19:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/10/why-we-believe.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 15:22:00 UTC