Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • We’re set back 50 years now. Europeans are cowards. Anglos are stupid. Russians

    We’re set back 50 years now. Europeans are cowards. Anglos are stupid. Russians are evil. And the Chinese are malevolent. Hooray for the Hindus. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 12:27:00 UTC

  • AMATEUR FIDDLES WHILE ROME BURNS What a clown

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/if-he-believes-it-it-must-be-so_783721.htmlTHE AMATEUR FIDDLES WHILE ROME BURNS

    What a clown.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 12:01:00 UTC

  • ***Natural elites MUST organize to construct property rights. It is impossible t

    ***Natural elites MUST organize to construct property rights. It is impossible to POSSESS PROPERTY RIGHTS unless one organizes to construct and protect them.***

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:35:00 UTC

  • GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY I love Hop

    GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY

    I love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions.

    Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality.

    Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods.

    In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’.

    Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science.

    There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:33:00 UTC

  • SUPPLIES

    https://twitter.com/JustHovensGreve/status/440356828799832064/photo/1GAS SUPPLIES

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:16:00 UTC

  • OPINION

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/next-putin-will-seize-donetsk-and-kharkiv/495463.htmlEX-STATE OPINION

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 05:53:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN ACTION IS PURELY EMPIRICAL The logic of human action is not

    THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN ACTION IS PURELY EMPIRICAL

    The logic of human action is not deductive. The logic of human action, including the discipline of economics, is entirely empirical. Empirical meaning ‘observable’.

    The canons of science require that we use instrumentation and logic to reduce that which we cannot sense to analogy to experience; that we test what we cannot perceive for internal consistency and external correspondence.

    But, we can test the rationality of incentives directly by pure perception. Our perception of voluntary exchange, involuntary exchange, and the satisfaction of wants is in itself the most reductive form of perception: we can both sense the rationality of incentives in relation to any change in state, and we can test the rationality of the incentives of others as well – because human incentives are marginally indifferent – at least outside of taste. Even then we can distinguish between rational tastes and non.

    As such, the logic of human action is constructed from, as all knowledge of truth is, empirical observation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 05:19:00 UTC

  • MERKEL: “PUTIN HAS LOST GRASP WITH REALITY” US STATE: “OLIGARCHS ARE FAIR GAME”

    MERKEL: “PUTIN HAS LOST GRASP WITH REALITY”

    US STATE: “OLIGARCHS ARE FAIR GAME”

    Finally getting somewhere.

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

  • THE REVOLT AGAINST THE MASSES –“The neo-Malthusianism that emerged from the 196

    THE REVOLT AGAINST THE MASSES

    –“The neo-Malthusianism that emerged from the 1960s did not aim to control the breeding habits of the lower classes, as its eugenicist precursors had done, but to mock and restrain the buying habits of the middle class.”–

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolt-Against-Masses-Liberalism/dp/1594036985/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 20:54:00 UTC

  • HOPPE IS WRONG ON POPPER – AND THIS IS WHY. I suspect that at this point Popper

    HOPPE IS WRONG ON POPPER – AND THIS IS WHY.

    I suspect that at this point Popper would suggest that all our attempts at social engineering have failed. And that we should constrain our ambitions to improving the institutions that facilitate economic calculation.

    While Hans attacks Popper for his piecemeal social engineering, the fact of the matter is, that Popper’s philosophical work is the closest to that of Propertarianism yet stated in the Germanic languages.

    I don’t criticize Hans for his imperfections: (a) that private property rights are logically sufficient for the suppression of demand for the state, and (b) that argumentation is not causal, (c) that praxeological statements are a-prioristically deductive, rather than sympathetically testable. Instead, I focus on what he got RIGHT – the incentives of monarchs vs rentiers, and the structure of non-monopolistic formal institutions

    I think we can forgive popper his open door to experimentation, and take from him what we can: that GiVEN THE FRAILTY OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, COERCIVE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER MORAL and never can be.

    Popper’s prohibition on truth claims is a moral one. And given that Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe are all WRONG in the interpretation of truth claims of Praxeology, and the structure of economic science, we’ve simply proven that not only is Popper RIGHT, but Popper has told us how to correct praxeology. Or at least that is how i was able to understand how to correct praxeology.

    Unfortunately, other than Hans it’s not possible to find many libertarians smart enough to have this level of discussion with. And I suspect he won’t appreciate it much. 🙂

    I need to get hans off of this argument. He’s wrong. Plain and simple. Popper is an asset not a liability. The prohibition on piecemeal engineering is one that POPPER gave us, NOT Mises.

    We can never claim to know enough to forcibly use other’s money for theoretical ends. The content in our myths, habits and traditions is also more dense than our understanding of those myths, habits and traditions. We may know how to USE those traditions. But like any complex technology we may not have knowledge of their CONSTRUCTION. And we certainly cannot observe the totality of their externalities – any more than we can observe the totality of the externality of prices.

    That’s Popper’s gift to us. That was Hayek’s gift to us. Hayek and Popper were closer to the answer than Mises – who, by applying Weber and Poincare, correctly understood economic calculation, but failed to grasp that economic science was not a-prioristic, but entirely empirical. He confused our ability to sympathetically test any human action for rational incentives, with the ability to deduce anything meaningful from the necessity for rational action.

    Curt Doolittle

    Propertarianism

    Rescuing liberty from the ethics of the ghetto, one paragraph at a time.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 16:53:00 UTC