Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY IS MEANINGLESS His claim: He has created a theory of

    LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY IS MEANINGLESS

    His claim:

    He has created a theory of liberty

    That theory of liberty precedes any dependence upon property (depends on the definition of property)

    That theory precedes any dependence upon morality (this is false)

    That this theory obviates the dependence upon property for the definition of liberty. (property is not the question, the practical scope of property adjudicable under law is the question, furthermore subjective value is assumed but untestable by third parties)

    That this theory is innovative (it is merely a restatement of subjective value)

    I can criticize it as such:

    1) “interpersonal liberty” is a contradiction in terms. Liberty has referred to freedom from interference in matters of property by the state. One cannot conduct interpersonal state operations. That is a contradiction in terms.

    2) morality is demonstrable as a prohibition against free riding necessary for any organism to cooperate. Free riding is an imposed cost.

    3) Lester has substituted the contradiction of “interpersonal liberty” for “morality”, rather than expressing liberty as the state of freedom from state imposition of costs (immorality).

    To refute this

    (a) one must demonstrate that the term liberty with its long history evolved as moral rather than political prohibition. (I think this is impossible)

    OR

    (b )To demonstrate that morality defined as the imposition of costs (free riding in economic and anthropological terms) is somehow different from the political imposition of costs. (I think this is impossible)

    THEREFORE HIS ARGUMENT IS NOT PRE-MORAL, IT IS EXPRESSLY MORAL AND HIS CLAIM IS FALLACIOUS: IT IS MERELY A WORD GAME – A DECEPTION OR AN ERROR.

    FURTHERMORE

    The purpose of property is to eliminate deception because of the impossibility of measuring changes in subjective value, (lying); and furthermore, the degree of suppression of free riding is dependent upon the economic division of labor AND the family structure extant in any polity. As such the definition of property varies from group to group as the conditions necessary for the conduct of free riding (cost imposition) is constituted from variable conditions. Property definitions limit the scope of impositions of merit to the community.

    Change in satisfaction is synonymous with subjective value. There is no difference. There is no debate outside of marxism with subjective value. The question is the objective means of measuring what the polity tolerates as decreases in subjective value that the community is willing to use violence in order to perform restitution.

    As such while he claims to have solved the problem of liberty, he has not, since his argument is no improvement over subjective value, and our problem is a means of measurement of something immune to deception that we are willing to use force in order to rectify (restitution).

    The question of liberty (preventing state immorality under rule of law) requires one of the following:

    (a) we must, despite current failures, identify a necessary, non-preferential definition of property and the means of transgression against it;

    Or (b) we must empirically test what definition of property provides people with the experience of liberty and define the experience of liberty as people demonstrate the experience of liberty.

    Or (c) we must abandon property as the objective instrumental measure of whether we experience a condition of liberty or not, and then identify an alternative means of measurement;

    Or (d) we must identify how to eliminate all possible means of transgression against our property, regardless of it constitution, such that no limit to our consideration of property is necessary.

    24 mins · Like

    Calling a cat a dog does not change the properties of the cat.

    Saying the cart comes before the horse doesn’t fly either. Morality precedes liberty.

    You can choose to call me whatever name you want but that does not change me.

    You can call someone else my name but that does not make him me.

    You can call morality the name “interpersonal liberty”, but that does not mean the properties of “interpersonal-liberty” are not is identical with morality. They are.

    His whole edifice is nonsense. Empty verbalism. And furthermore it’s as bad an abuse of critical rationalism as I have ever seen.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 23:30:00 UTC

  • Eli Harman shared a link to your timeline

    Eli Harman shared a link to your timeline.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 22:59:00 UTC

  • THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE (important)(pervasive

    THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE

    (important)(pervasive Russian corruption and sympathizers in the bureaucracy)

    Entry into the western family of countries requires the elimination of Russian Kleptocracy (systemic corruption) that was endemic under Russian backed administrations. It does no good to give Ukraine money or access to Europe, if this corruption is not eradicated. (And this is why Russia is fighting so hard in Ukraine, because if Ukraine can, like Poland, evolve out of a low-trust, high-corruption, kleptocracy in the absence of Russian influence, then so can Russia and the Russian people. To prevent loss of control (Putin is now wealthier than bill gates), Putin and his ThinkTanks have used the press to convince Russians that they are not white (european) and that the west is engaged in suicide that the Russians must defend against, thus making them non-european. And therefore justifying totalitarianism (russian kelptocracy).

    UKRAINE’S COMING PURGE OF RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZERS

    Ukraine has just started a new organization, whose purpose is to cleanse the Ukrainian bureaucracy of corruption (russian-sympathzing kleptocrats, as well as corrupt Ukrainians). This new organizatino is structured as a new independent police force in a rigid hierarchy and entry into these positions requires that applications possess experience in business and industry and NOT IN GOVERNMENT. (yes you heard that right. what if we did that in the states?) The salaries for these jobs are high enough that graft and corruption are hard to accomplish.

    BIOMETRIC PASSPORTS

    So, in order to issue biometric passports they must first purge the ranks, show europeans that they can reliably issue passports, and demonstrate that the passports themselves and the equipment will not fall into Russian and Russian-sympathizing hands.

    Trust matters, everywhere and everywhere. Diversity destroys trust. You cannot invade ukraine with russians and create trust, any more than you can invade any other populace with a competitor and create trust.

    WHY RUSSIA HAS A MORAL ARGUMENT: WESTERN SUICIDAL MULTICULTURALISM

    The single argument that Russia has going for it is western suicidal stance on immigration. Russia promotes nationalism, as should the european countries. If not for this one problem in the west, Russia would have no argument to make. But as long as the west proceeds with its suicide through multiculturalism, equality and massive immigration, Russia will have a legitimate argument with which to separate Russian peoples from european peoples.

    The means by which we unite all circumpolar people is to re-nationalize liberalism and end the divide between west and eastern Europe.

    You might not like it but that’s just how it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 21:28:00 UTC

  • I am not into racism or antisemitism. I am critical of every one of the enlighte

    I am not into racism or antisemitism. I am critical of every one of the enlightenment grroups for their stuipidity.

    (worth repeating)

    —“I am not interested in anti-semitism. I argue only against the accidental application of jewish in-group ethics and argument structure as pseudoscience in an era where our western extant means of logic and argument at human scale required our retention of european testimonial truth and operationalism because at that time our intellectual problems in all fields exceeded human scale.

    I am not anti semitic. Just the opposite. I’m a compatibilist. I do think the Jewish century is over with, and that it was tragically harmful. If you want to get involved in racism or whatever, that is not what I do. I think it’s always the wrong question. The answer is why you subject yourself to internal political competition, not why other pursue a better life for themselves.

    I do not think Jews understood what they were doing any more than we anglo europeans understood what we were doing, or the germans or the french understood what they were doing. We all just justified what we had done before in the new context in order to maintain group cohesion.

    My effort is to make us understand what happened, and why jewish pseudoscientific thought in all disciplines was so easy to attack western civilization with.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 21:13:00 UTC

  • is full of useful idiots on all sides of the spectrum

    http://www.kaotic.com/43519_War-Videos-%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86-%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8E..htmlamerica is full of useful idiots on all sides of the spectrum…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:54:00 UTC

  • (more thoughts) Either libertarianism stands scientific criticism or it doesn’t.

    (more thoughts)

    Either libertarianism stands scientific criticism or it doesn’t. So far it doesn’t. And either an argument can be constructed scientifically or it can’t. I can and have constructed it scientifically where it is open falsification. It can be criticized by rational argument. It can be weakly falsified by surveys, and it can be hard-falsified by experiment. Why should libertarianism be buried in the backwater of pseudoscience? It would be one thing if it had to be, and therefore had to remain an ideology, and neither a philosophy or a scientifically supportable argument. But that isn’t the case. If we CAN state libertarianism scientifically then what are we afraid of other than the rather obvious fact that to construct a state of liberty one will require a high trust polity that suppresses unethical as well as at least SOME immoral conduct?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:38:00 UTC

  • It’s Less than 9 hours from Dresden to where we are in Lviv, about 7-9 hours fro

    It’s Less than 9 hours from Dresden to where we are in Lviv, about 7-9 hours from Lviv to Kiev, and about 11+ hours from Kiev to Lugansk where the fighting is. That means the distance from us here in Lviv to Lugansk is about 18-20 hours drive, and the distance to Germany is about 9 hours drive. I hope that puts it in perspective.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:25:00 UTC

  • David Gordon pretty much eviscerates Lester’s argument on Lester’s terms – which

    David Gordon pretty much eviscerates Lester’s argument on Lester’s terms – which is perhaps the most gracious way of doing so. I have a better understanding of Popper’s arguments than David so I’m producing my own criticism, not just of lester but of all cosmopolitan thinkers in the space, Lester included. It’s just odd to see someone so graceful about it.

    What I like about David’s criticism, is it shows just why non-operational, non-testimonial arguments are so open to deception. I suppose that, from Lester’s writing (and my few conversations with him) that he merely applies the ideas of popper in an autistic but uncomprehending attempt to justify libertarianism, while at the same time claiming he does not practice justification. But as Gordon points out, he uses falsification as a means of distraction in the marxist tradition rather than as a means of hardening his theories.

    Further, Popper’s arguments are warnings against the excessive use of certainty in science, where general descriptions of very causally dense theories an appear to be true (Keynesian and post-keynesian economic theory, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian Logic) but are merely useful allegories for conveying meaning. They are not scientific and therefore should not be used for the purpose of persuasion only for the purpose of conveying MEANING. Popper commits this sin everywhere. He conveys meaning, not necessity. ie: he creates meaningful narratives but rarely if ever constructs necessary arguments. Even his Critical Preference is logically but it appears not empirically true. Part of the verbalist era of logic in the early twentieth century: it is not clear that that many of our theories are erroneous, rather that they are as precise as the information we have, and that we seem to be fairly good at increasing precision via testing, even if we are not very good at increasing precision via modeling.

    More later.

    The problem is, we don’t have people in the libertarian movement capable of making these arguments. I think they exist in math and physics, but I kind of suspect that in the libertarian movement we just don’t have the talent.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:04:00 UTC

  • THE SECTS OF LIBERTARIANISM (worth repeating) Libertarianism: a preference for l

    THE SECTS OF LIBERTARIANISM

    (worth repeating)

    Libertarianism: a preference for liberty as the first priority, where liberty is defined as a monopoly of control over myself, and any thing I have obtained through homesteading (first use), voluntary exchange, or transformation thereof. And that all political goods must be willingly constructed rather than involuntarily constructed. That is pretty much the extent of it. My work is an attempt to provide solutions for creating complex and desirable commons voluntarily rather than through a monopoly of majoritarian dictatorship.

    Prior generations of ‘libertarians’ from the cosmopolitan sect (Jewish Enlightenment) of liberty have attempted to disavow all possible construction of the commons, whereas classical liberals (in both German and English Enlightenment sects) maintain the civic society as a means of voluntarily producing the commons.

    However it is only possible to produce commons in a society where people refrain from consuming the commons, and only Europeans appear to have constructed a society where individuals do not consume commons that are reserved from consumption.

    We can easily distinguish Jewish and European libertarianism by whether or not they deny responsibility to pay for voluntarily constructed commons versus whether they obligate us to pay for voluntarily constructed commons. The civic commons is the western European competitive advantage, while promoting consumption at all costs is the cosmopolitan evolutionary strategy.

    There is nothing illogical about these opposing strategies. European martial land owners must pay high costs for preserving control over territory necessary to construct productive resources, while jewish transitory merchants benefit by the opposite strategy of profiting from trade and consumption.

    Theoretically these are not incompatible strategies. In history they have been incompatible strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 15:41:00 UTC

  • ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE

    ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE.

    (worth repeating)

    –“Fairness may be perceptible but it is not instrumentally calculable, and as such the scope of fairness is limited to members of the small, local group; and any use of the word ‘fair’ beyond the immediately perceptible is not only an error it is a deception if not an outright lie.”–

    –“We have a sense of fairness – the correct term is ‘Proportionality’, and left and right value proportionality differently (equality vs meritocracy), however it is true that all people sense violations of proportionality. However, the fact remains that this is the projection of a sense-perception onto a scale requiring instrumentalism. As such, any statement of proportionality is a fallacy since such a thing is incalculable. Instead, we respond to people who are in need, but we do not SUPPORT people who are in need as a matter of course, because it is UNFAIR (disproportionate) to support people who systemically seek rents at the expense of others. We DO seek to insure each other against the vicissitudes of life, but we also seek to insure each other against free riding. One cannot make one statement without making the other without engaging in verbal deception.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 11:09:00 UTC