Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION (worth repeating) (rep

    SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION

    (worth repeating) (reposted for archiving)

    —“One of the problems those of us at the lofty reaches fall prey to is ‘smart people disease’. (Projection Bias) Because we are both better able to identify deception and error, and because we associate with people better able to identify deception and error, and because we and those we associate with encounter less deception and error, we discount the near universal presence of deception even if we do not discount the near universal presence of error. The biggest threat to rational discourse is not error, or fallacy, it is deception, obscurantism, and postmodernism. Against which, Victorian ethics are a handicap.”—

    This is politics.

    Draw intellectual blood.

    Defeat your opponent completely.

    In public, with fanfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 18:00:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY AS A STREET VENDOR, OR HERMIT? (It’s not hard. I read books, papers,

    PHILOSOPHY AS A STREET VENDOR, OR HERMIT?

    (It’s not hard. I read books, papers, news and blogs all day and use FB as a sketchbook. The purpose of sketches is to put ideas in my own words. To see if in my own words I can construct arguments. To, over time, simplify and hone those arguments. Now, some people happen to like watching this ideological blacksmithing, so it’s mutually beneficial. Others learn and are entertained and I get feedback from them. It’s awesome really. How did thinkers just hole up and talk to their books? It works, sure. But it’s just so much more human and enjoyable to work as a street vendor than a hermit.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:56:00 UTC

  • ON THE PRECISE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATING STRATEGY —“Strategy is required whe

    ON THE PRECISE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATING STRATEGY

    —“Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns.”—

    I disagree with the structure of the author’s argument, first because it’s imprecise in that it’s not causally informative, and secondly, it’s stated defensively as a cost rather than offensively as a benefit. So let me see if I can restated it as a on offensive benefit.

    I’ve taught people for at least fifteen years, that in any organization, each individual makes thousands of decisions a day. Most decisions are unclear, or rather, tie-breakers. And they must use some means of determining how to choose among marginally indifferent decisions. Without some means of choosing they will either use what little information they have to make the choice, or they will choose what is best for them in the absence of alternative information about which choice to make.

    If everyone understands your strategy then they choose to break the tie in favor of your strategy, and subordinates force their superiors to break ties in favor of strategies – and resist contradictions to the strategy, thousands of times per day.

    For this reason, short, medium, and long term strategies should be well communicated in a single voice from the top on a quarterly or semi annual basis. this way, you supply everyone in your organization the means of making decisions which to them appear to be marginally indifferent, but which collectively and cumulativly provide meaningful progress towards your strategic goals.

    In my opinion, the thousands of minor decisions, each of which moves microscopically in the direction of your strategy is very often, more influential than your greater more direct initiatives.

    I have found that if I do it right, my strategy work can all but eliminate the rest of my job. There have been entire multiple-month periods where I have had nothing to do, and nothing I should do, because the organization is well enough informed to make decisions and to check each other’s decisions, without my assistance.

    And the truth is, this gives individuals a sense of much desirable and appreciated sovereignty (feeling of being in control of their lives), of personal confidence in their decisions, and reduced friction from internal conflict and politicking. It also helps the organization identify and ostracize maladaptive individuals.

    I know that the success of this approach is partly a product of the high trust society of the west, and the desire for sovereignty and heroic recognition, but having now experimented elsewhere, It seems to me that it is possible to train organizations in at least the eastern european countries, if not asia.

    FROM “STRATEGY: A HISTORY”

    —“This is why a strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns.

    …

    Having a strategy suggests an ability to look up from the short term and the trivial to view the long term and the essential, to address causes rather than symptoms, to see woods rather than trees.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:52:00 UTC

  • BURNHAM’S MANAGERIAL ELITE –“Burnham identified the new elite as the men “able

    BURNHAM’S MANAGERIAL ELITE

    –“Burnham identified the new elite as the men “able to control contemporary mass industry, the massed labor force, and a supra-national form of political organization.” He assumed that this control could be exercised by means of a compelling political formula. So, rational behavior for the elite would be to get the masses to accept unscientific myths. If they failed to sustain beliefs in the myths, the fabric of society would crack and they would be overthrown. In short, the leaders—if they themselves were scientific—must lie.”–

    Burnham was right. Except, that the alternative was not to possess a supra-national political organization, but to prohibit them entirely. The purpose of the large state was war – a creation of Napoleon.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:41:00 UTC

  • READING: _STRATEGY: A HISTORY_ (AMAZING). One of those books you don’t read. You

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F3D4IVGTONIGHT’S READING: _STRATEGY: A HISTORY_ (AMAZING).

    One of those books you don’t read. You study. You contemplate. You apply.

    (Not going to get through this in one sitting. No chance.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:37:00 UTC

  • EFFECTIVE INTELLECTUAL ENGAGEMENT VS IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENT. (I’m ri

    EFFECTIVE INTELLECTUAL ENGAGEMENT VS IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENT.

    (I’m riffing off Peter’s point. Not so much countering it. Because political debate is not in the same class as intellectual and academic engagement.)

    Status Update

    By Peter Boettke

    Four rules of effective intellectual engagement — from Daniel Dennett

    How to compose a successful critical commentary:

    (1) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

    (2) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

    (3) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

    (4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

    I was taught these rules by Don Lavoie, I wish I was good enough of a person and scholar to always follow them. I will strive to do better.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle

    Very victorian Peter. It depends on the sector and the consequences. The history of Ideological debate does not agree with your advice. The history of academic study does.

    I learned a hard lesson from Hayek’s gentlemanly failure, and Friedman, Rothbard and Krugman’s immediate impact: if you’re debating science then that’s a gentleman’s game. Science is a luxury good. Politics is a proxy for war, and ideology is the weapon of influence.

    Time is precious.

    (Affections as always.)

    Curt Doolittle

    –” This is granting several enormous assumptions; (1) that your fellow actually believes what he says, (2) that he is stating the same reasons that he actually has for his position, and (3) that the crowd or stakeholders actually believe his argument based on the publicly stated reasons.

    I find it entirely likely, if not 100% certainly the case that (1) The arguments are just publicly digestible justifications. (2) The fellow has actual motives and reasons that differ from the arguments given, and (3) the crowd believes in the position due to the hidden reasons, regardless of the stated reasons.

    To accept your methodology, in my opinion, is to admit that Public Choice Theory is not valid.”–

    OMG. STEALING THIS.

    Curt Doolittle

    Note: one of the problems those of us at the lofty reaches fall prey to is ‘smart people disease’. (Projection Bias) Because we are both better able to identify deception and error, and because we associate with people better able to identify deception and error, and because we and those we associate with encounter less deception and error, we discount the near universal presence of deception even if we do not discount the near universal presence of error. The biggest threat to rational discourse is not error, or fallacy, it is deception, obscurantism, and postmodernism. Against which, Victorian ethics are a handicap.

    CLOSING

    I try to draw blood.

    Because your opponent is less likely to walk away when wounded.

    And you can defeat him thoroughly.

    I’m not a gentlemen. I’m a warrior.

    And I understand the moral difference between the two.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:25:00 UTC

  • VALENTINE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PEOPLE WORKING TODAY Why? Because he wr

    http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=308020AYELAM VALENTINE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PEOPLE WORKING TODAY

    Why? Because he writes about something new: the struggle against socialist ideas in Africa. He doesn’t retread old arguments. He gives us something new. And in philosophy, economics, and politics, new thought, and good new thought, is worth paying attention to.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 16:34:00 UTC

  • MI/LRC: ABANDON ROTHBARDIANISM AS A FAILED IDEOLOGY OR BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES Dea

    MI/LRC: ABANDON ROTHBARDIANISM AS A FAILED IDEOLOGY OR BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES

    Dear Lou,

    It must be clear to you, after more than thirty years, that the philosophical product you have been selling has been rejected by the market for ideologies as a means of obtaining political power sufficient to enact change. Even if younger generations are turning to some form of libertarianism, they are turning to the moral intuitions of classical liberalism, not to the ethical and political program of rothbardian anarcho capitalism. Despite what you seem to imply and claim credit for – with increasing frequency.

    If you stated “I sold the ideology that was available to sell. Had there been a better ideology then I would have sold that product instead.” That is very different from continuing the sale of your defective product, once it has been demonstrated to fail in the market, and moreover done damage to consumers and the brand. The brand that you damaged in this case is “liberty”. The consumers you damaged were the people who desired liberty and sought public intellectuals and philosophers to help them preserve it and regain it.

    But, while one is blameless in one’s ignorance, once one is made aware that Rothbarianism:

    (a) advocates an immoral and unethical standard upon which to base the the law;

    (b) advocates low trust societies, and that many such low trust societies have existed and continue to exist – and are all poor because of it;

    (c) that high trust societies and the wealth of high trust societies is caused the the low transaction costs, the velocity of innovation, production and trade that higher ethical standards of the high trust wealthy societies make use of;

    (d) that humans traded pervasive violence, theft, unethical and immoral action, for the state’s high cost – willingly and desirably. And they were wise to. They traded high transaction costs, for high costs, and benefitted from that adoption, everywhere that they did so. Albeit is always generated consequential predation they prefer it to the alternative;

    (e) that it is not rational for individuals to prefer to choose to regress into lower trust, higher transaction cost societies such as those recommended by rothbard’s intersubjectively verifiable property (IVP) definition, and non aggression principle (NAP) ensconce;

    (f) that rothbard’s IVP&NAP of necessity, and incontrovertibly, expressly legalize unethical and immoral actions;

    (g) that it is non rational for people to abandon their use of violence to suppress unethical and immoral actions – especially given the human instinctual preference for punishment of ‘cheaters’ even at dramatic personal cost. And the biological necessity of any cooperative organism to demonstrate that punishment of ‘cheaters’ even if at high cost;

    (h) that the elimination of the state, and the near elimination of the state was only accomplished by the opposite means, by northern european peoples, by the near total suppression of all free riding in all forms including within the Absolute Nuclear Family, and between families, in the form of total suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial behavior, and requiring that that all members of the polity contribute to production, rather than engage in any actions, including any trades and exchanges, that did not contribute to production. Property is the consequence of the prohibition on free-riding in all it’s forms, and the more complex the society the more opportunity for free riding is caused by expanding anonymity and ignorance. And the more opportunity the more suppression of new means of free riding is necessary.

    (i) that it was only with the immoral use of credit by private sector loans to the state, that the states were able to finance state conquest of the the only free societies ever to exist;

    (j) that suppression of free riding in all its forms is not, as rothbardians advocate, an entreaty to the state, as long as the definition of property as a positive assertion, and the definition of free riding as a negative assertion are sufficiently articulated as the basis of community rights under the common law, adjudicable by an independent judiciary. Quite the contrary, humans demonstrate high demand for the state wherever unethical and immoral rules are not codified in the law, and therefore open to dispute resolution by private means. Instead, the definition of property as a positive assertion and the prohibition of free riding as a negative assertion must sufficiently suppress the means of all conflict to the degree that any group of human beings will voluntarily choose an anarchic polity over that of statist polity.

    … it therefore the begs the question why one would continue to advocate a failed, immoral, irrational, impossible ideology, that has demonstrably failed in the market, has harmed the brand of liberty, has damaged the brand of libertarianism, and has damaged the population by misleading them in an immoral and impossible direction, and failing to resist the expansionary state in the interim. The opportunity cost has been tragic. And if not for conservative obstructionism would would have been even worse.

    So, since it is ONLY rationally, and by the evidence possible, to construct a voluntary anarchic polity by suppression of nearly all free riding in the forms of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, actions, and requiring production in all actions open to possible dispute, the question remains why one would advocate an impossible, unethical, immoral, damaging program of ideology that had demonstrably failed in the market for moral social orders.

    That is, unless one is an advocate of unethical, immoral social orders. And that would mean that one was an unethical and immoral man.

    Adapt. Adapt or continue to fail, and bear the consequences of that failure.

    1) Abandon Rothbard’s failed, unethical, immoral, and impossible program.

    2) Adopt Ron Paul’s message of moral classical liberalism.

    3) Adopt Hoppe’s Intellectual program for the construction of institutional alternatives to monopoly bureaucracy.

    4) Adopt Propertarianism’s extensions of Hoppe’s ethics for the basis of the common law and an independent private judiciary.

    If one does not know one’s actions are unethical and immoral he can be forgiven. We all err. But once confronted with one’s unethical and immoral actions, one must either change them or be prosecuted and persecuted as unethical and immoral by all ethical and moral individuals for the unethical and immoral ideology he advocates.

    Humans are not kind to the unethical and immoral.

    Neither are the fates.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 14:53:00 UTC

  • leftists have sufficiently ruined a place, they simply move on to begin ruining

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-illinois-connecticut-move-elsewhere.aspx”When leftists have sufficiently ruined a place, they simply move on to begin ruining some other place. It’s a metastasizing cancer.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 05:47:00 UTC

  • SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR

    SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR?

    (floundering on the obvious)

    Yet, if I *DO* know how to speak truthfully, and I do not, even if I repeat my prior statement, I am speaking dishonestly.

    So, then if a constitution defines honesty non-obscuranatly (operationally) then one cannot claim to NOT know it, yet at the same time argue within the constraints of the constitution? Right?

    Too simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:40:00 UTC