Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LEARN FREEDOM THE HARD WAY, AND THE RIGHT WAY: MILITIA Freedom is obtained, and

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/ukraine-young-partisans-106411_Page2.html#ixzz32A17JQrCUKRAINIANS LEARN FREEDOM THE HARD WAY, AND THE RIGHT WAY: MILITIA

    Freedom is obtained, and maintained, at the point of a gun. Pacifists are free riders, liars and thieves.

    —“Kyiv has a large strategic reserve of Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons—around 5 million pieces—as a mobilization reserve dating back to Soviet times. It has made clear to the Kremlin that it is now considering the possibility of opening up this stockpile to its citizens in East Ukraine. At least half this reserve is concentrated near Sloviansk and it is the reason that Russian special forces were sent there to secure the area.”—-

    Read more:

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-19 07:38:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f6_1399588813&comments=1

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-19 07:19:00 UTC

  • OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to r

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K9FYT62REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’.

    Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning.

    THOUGHTS

    I do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary.

    The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project.

    However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.)

    So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory.

    CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has.

    So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it.

    It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours.

    Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors.

    Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. 🙂

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-19 06:17:00 UTC

  • WOULDN”T BE THAT VIOLENT. IT DOESN”T HAVE TO BE. ITS FRAGILE. Interesting progno

    http://www.libertychat.com/2014/05/violent-u-s-revolution-look-like-today-compared-1776-ian-cioffi/IT WOULDN”T BE THAT VIOLENT. IT DOESN”T HAVE TO BE. ITS FRAGILE.

    Interesting prognostication. Not one that is supported by the evidence. At no time in history has communication and coordination been available to so many, nor has the systemic infrastructure upon which a society rests, been so fragile. If it were true what you say, the DC Sniper would have had no economic impact, and the rise of professional international insurgents would not have become the de facto means by which war is being conducted. Multiple books, some fairly popular have been written on this subject. Not only is it effective to use systemic facility to drive an efficient economy into shock, and a government in to visible discredit and failure, it’s cheap, and it takes fewer people, a shorter time, than at any point in history. The problem americans face is actually (a) a catalyzing event, and (b) general awareness of a possible solution or alternative to the current order.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 19:44:00 UTC

  • FEEDING THE DEEP STATE ITS FAVORITE FOOD —“In light of the new security situat

    FEEDING THE DEEP STATE ITS FAVORITE FOOD

    —“In light of the new security situation created by Russia’s illegal and illegitimate aggression against Ukraine, we have taken immediate measures to enhance collective security in the air, at sea and on the ground. … The Ukraine crisis has compelled the alliance to refocus on its core mission of defending its members after years in which its main effort has been far away in Afghanistan.”—

    So stupid. Russia could have led the western world. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

    The white people who failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 17:45:00 UTC

  • Raisinwits 🙂

    Raisinwits 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 17:41:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINES. MASQUERADING AS LIBERTARIANS Block is the poster child for unethical

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/walter-e-block/pure-libertarianism/PURE LIBERTINES. MASQUERADING AS LIBERTARIANS

    Block is the poster child for unethical, immoral, ghetto libertarianism, and he hurts the movement every time he opens his mouth. Rockwell is barman

    of the lunatic fringe, and Kinsella the bouncer of ignorance and dogmatism — they’re the three stooges of the red-flag rothbardian conspiracy to cause the failure of the western liberty movement – and the’re live onstage, nightly.

    Our enemy is the state. It’s not ethics or morality. The libertarian’s only moral question is how to maintain a moral and ethical high trust society while getting rid of the state, and all possible demand for the state.

    Libertines are a cancer. There isn’t any ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ libertarianism. That’s another ruse to obscure the red flag operation of the libertines to undermine the high trust society we have slowly built for millennia.

    Aristocratic egalitarianism is the only source of liberty that ever was or will be. The enfranchisement of the willing in the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of organized violence to defend it. That is “Right” libertarianism. The wealth and liberty that comes from Right libertarianism, makes possible the LUXURY of left libertarianism’s moral appeals for charity. But libertines are merely parasites on aristocratic necessity and charitable luxury.

    Non-aggression is a ruse. A lie. A convenient distraction. A false flag. The means of violating our property is immaterial. All that is necessary is that property is violated in whatever creative manner than man invents.

    Hoppe was right. We need no more than property for our freedom.

    And we have no use for libertines: parasites by any other name.

    Moral Realism, Propertarianism, Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

    The virtue of violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 12:36:00 UTC

  • (fun)(movies) Finally got around to watching Pompeii. OMG. Who approved this scr

    (fun)(movies)

    Finally got around to watching Pompeii. OMG. Who approved this script? What a waste of good actors. I mean, HBO’s Rome and Starz’s Spartacus were vastly superior, on trivial budgets by comparison. What a dishonor to the dead.

    Sad.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 12:15:00 UTC

  • THE RICH DON’T CONSUME RETURNS ON SAVINGS (worth repeating) –“Piketty’s rich-ge

    THE RICH DON’T CONSUME RETURNS ON SAVINGS

    (worth repeating)

    –“Piketty’s rich-get-ever-richer projection can happen only if the rich don’t live like rich people, that is, that they don’t spend their wealth or the income generated by their wealth. All those savings just sit there making the economy more productive and, in the process, raising wages for the proletariat while the top 1% don’t actually consume any of the returns on those savings. Piketty’s scenario is close to Charles Murray’s desire that the rich live a little less ostentatiously.”—Andrew Biggs.

    (Except for food -restaurants- I bet I ‘live poorer’ than the middle class today. Almost every cent I’ve made goes into investment in my next business. Furthermore, to build ascentium, I lived on zero to 50K a year for two years, and at half my income for most of the rest, and even at my highest salary, less than 60% of my market value. Everything else was reinvested in the business. This is pretty common. Being rich isn’t a matter of consumption. It’s a matter of using your money to make money, rather than using your time, arms and legs. But then there is the entire state-corporatist-financial-sector that vampires off all of us. But entrepreneurs and private investors are not in that category.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 06:31:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH HUMAN ACTION I guess, I just assumed that it w

    OPERATIONALISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH HUMAN ACTION

    I guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not.

    So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action?

    What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations?

    What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality?

    Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not?

    Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality?

    Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical.

    Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic.

    Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms.

    Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies.

    If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are.

    All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law.

    Everything else is obscurant nonsense.

    Science won.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 06:22:00 UTC