Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC (Reposted from comment

    THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC

    (Reposted from comment on National review:)

    They either must sue or impeach or they risk the de facto destruction of the balance of powers.

    I prefer that he be struck by lightening from the hand of god (or a lucky lunatic foreign or domestic), but otherwise impeachment is political, impossible and leaves us with an imbecile in the presidency, while the courts construct prescedent and effectively reconstruct the laws that he has broken. I would much prefer a body of law to constrain the administration than I would the political process.

    Once he is guilty he is defacto guilty of high crimes, so impeachment is either easier or unnecessary. In either case his presidency is done.

    We will eventually have to separate state (ritual and veto) from government (administration). The presidency is, empirically a failed institution, both domestically and internationally. A monarchy with veto power and a parliamentary system have proven superior. But since we have no monarchy, a president unbound by term limits whose only power was the podium and veto would better fulfill the demands of the balance of powers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:41:00 UTC

  • My Glossary alone is over 100 pages. So I will have to label necessary terms. An

    My Glossary alone is over 100 pages. So I will have to label necessary terms. And see what can be cut. But not much can be. Why? Because of you cleanse terms of the various fallacies endemic to democracy and the legitimacy of the state, as well as various philosophical fallacies, then the set of terms that does not need restatement is small.

    Our language is polluted.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:00:00 UTC

  • “The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons

    —“The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons shall be equal to the percentage of income provided to the commons by results of trade. This places reciprocal limits on the producers of goods within the voluntary organization of production, and the producers of the commons that enable the voluntary organization of production.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 04:50:00 UTC

  • HBD BIg guy. Love you man. 🙂

    HBD BIg guy. Love you man. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 02:34:00 UTC

  • DON’T LIKE IT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY AREN’T GOOD AT IT

    http://t.co/K721uVC7XrI DON’T LIKE IT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY AREN’T GOOD AT IT.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 12:18:00 UTC

  • UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Polit

    UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS

    “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Politics

    I got stuck while writing Propertarianism in 2010 on the ethical requirement that at that time I called “Calculability”. I knew it was needed in any contractual government to prevent externalizing costs – if not outright acts of abuse and fraud.

    For all intents and purposes, I was forcing contractual and monetary (numeric) constraints into political ethics. But I knew something was ‘wrong’ in verbal constructions as well. Even if strict construction and original intent were known issues, how could I prevent fallacious argument in politics (lying)?

    And I just couldn’t get my arms around it. And it’s taken me really, what, three and a half years to solve it with Operationalism? So, instead of one ethical addition called ‘calculability’ which we need to keep, I need to add Operationalism as well (ie: ‘Proof”). I suppose I could work the language a bit and demonstrate that they’re in fact, the same principle applied to calculable and argumentative problems but I think that would only complicate matters. So I’ll keep them separate and overlapping (which is a theme I keep finding myself using.)

    So Truth(Testimony) Operationalism(Proof), and Calculability(testability of contract) are the additional properties of political ethics I’ve added to to propertarianism. I am not sure but I think that’s the hardest problem I had to solve in this entire program so far.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 06:26:00 UTC

  • Explanatory Power vs Parsimony Verification vs Falsification Correspondence vs O

    Explanatory Power vs Parsimony

    Verification vs Falsification

    Correspondence vs Operations?

    Proof vs Truth?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:51:00 UTC

  • Good friends ask you the right questions, and give you the right criticisms. Goo

    Good friends ask you the right questions, and give you the right criticisms. Good friends make you more of what you can be, than you could be without them. I am lucky I have such good friends.

    Thank you.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:40:00 UTC

  • OK. I just blew my own mind. Now, I need more coffee. It’s noon. Dark as hell. R

    OK. I just blew my own mind. Now, I need more coffee. It’s noon. Dark as hell. Raining like an Nor’easter downpour, with thundering and lightning like the Catatumbo delta. I need more coffee. Yeah. And to let all this settle in a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:38:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN? I want to talk about the

    OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN?

    I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:33:00 UTC