Source: Facebook

  • “The way I think about it is; only a pre-existing state is capable of preventing

    —“The way I think about it is; only a pre-existing state is capable of preventing people from forming a new state, so libertarianism is less “doomed to fail” than it is a complete nonstarter.”—James Brittingham

    MONARCHY = PRIVATE PROPERTY STATE

    It’s also doomed to fail, since the balance of commons vs private consumption isn’t possible unless the monarchy owns the territory, collects rents on it, and produces commons from the rent, thereby making all parties, including the state, private property owners.

    P-MONARCHY

    In P I argue that a monarchy can only survive corporally in the age of gunpowder b/c it’s dependent upon the militia and military rather than an alliance of land-holding families of professional warriors – with the relationship between militia and monarchy governed by rule of law. I prefer income taxes over land taxes, and I prefer rental income be limited to the monarchy or ‘the church’, just as I prefer consumer credit be handled by the monarchy, and the privatization of all bureaucracy as customer service organizations – thus preventing rent-seeking across the spectrum. Unions then serve as insurers of relations, and insurers fulfill their functions of insurers of property, and families return to insurers of kin, and we, incrementally wipe all rent seeking off the map, driving all capital into longer and longer and larger and larger investment and return cycles. It is possible to restore responsibility and accountability because the economy will be purged of innumeracy and itself returned ot ‘accountability’. ie: no more financial and economic lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-18 10:38:00 UTC

  • “”God is love” (1 John 4:8) is bullshit pilpul that really means “love is God,”

    —“”God is love” (1 John 4:8) is bullshit pilpul that really means “love is God,” which is euphemistic code for envy-based care/harm fundamentalism that punishes the strong for being strong and celebrates the weak for being weak.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    via Michelle German


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-18 10:17:00 UTC

  • Doolittle’s Comments On Silver’s Quotes from his Book: 1. The story data tells u

    Doolittle’s Comments On Silver’s Quotes from his Book:

    1. The story data tells us is often the one we’d like to hear, and we usually make sure it has a happy ending.

    3. There are entire disciplines in which predictions have been failing, often at a great cost to society.

    4. Some stone-age strengths have become information-age weaknesses.

    5. We can never make perfectly objective predictions. They will always be tainted by our subjective point of view.

    (CD: They will always be tainted by our wants for the world rather than untainted by a description of the world. we live in paradigms of utility.)

    6. A belief in the objective truth -and a commitment to pursuing it- is the first prerequisite of making better predictions.

    (CD: very few of us seek truth. We all seek utility not truth. For some of us truth and utility are identical. for others it forces them into competition with darwin – and truth is the enemy of false genes as much as false ideas.)

    7. Prediction is important because it connects subjective and objective reality.

    (CD: prediction is important because it falsifies many subjective realities training us to predict objective realities.)

    8. We are undoubtedly living with many delusions that we do not even realize.

    (CD: psychology must be the study of cognitive error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit – and the sciences efforts at compensating for them.)

    9. We must become more comfortable with probability and uncertainty.

    10. We must think more carefully about the assumptions and beliefs that we bring to a problem.

    11. A certain amount of immersion in a topic will provide disproportionally more insight that an executive summary.

    12. The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth.

    13. Precise forecasts masquerade as accurate ones.

    14. If you have reason to think that yesterday’s forecast was wrong, there is no glory in sticking to it.

    15. New ideas are sometimes found in the most granular details of a problem where few others bother to look.

    16. Extrapolation is a very basic method of prediction -usually, much too basic.

    (CD: One must never extrapolate a trend – everything in nature equilibrates.)

    17. In many cases involving predictions about human activity, the very act of prediction can alter the way that people behave.

    18. The most effective flu prediction might be the one that fails to come to fruition because it motivates people toward more healthful choices.

    19. While simplicity can be a virtue for a model, a model should at least be sophisticatedly simple.

    (CD: the quality of a prediction is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information, not the complexity of the model.)

    20. We can never achieve perfect objectivity, rationality, or accuracy in our beliefs. Instead, we can strive to be less subjective, less irrational, and less wrong.

    (CD: we have spent, because of theology, far too much of our history in via-positiva justification, and are still escaping it. Instead we must focus on via positiva reduction of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.)

    21. Recently, […] some well-respected statisticians have begun to argue that frequentist statistics should no longer be taught to undergraduates. […] In fact, if what you read what’s been written in the past ten years, it’s hard to find anything that doesn’t advocate a Bayesian approach.

    (CD: Bayseian accounting is superior to mathematical averages. when stated in this manner the difference in quality of prediction is rather obvious.)

    22. There is strong empirical evidence that there is a benefit in aggregating different forecasts.

    (CD: competition between theories produces information not only about one theory but about the minds of man making those theories.)

    21. This is another of those Information-age risks: we share so much information that our independence is reduced. (CD: information that is not true (parsimonious)

    22. Perhaps the central finding of behavioral economics is that most of us are overconfident when we make predictions.

    (CD: we evolved overconfidence because action for gain is necessary. We confuse the necessity of action for gain with applying it beyond its evolutionary purpose.)

    23. In science, progress is possible. In fact, if one believes in Bayes’ theorem, scientific progress is inevitable as predictions are made and as beliefs are tested and refined.

    (CD: Whether mathematical Bayes or Philosophical Popper, or Cognitive science’s lesson that our brains operate by massively parallel similarly bayesian means, learning through trial and error no matter how error prone, will produce either progress in knowledge or failure to survive.)

    24. The March toward scientific progress is not always straightforward, and some well-regarded (even “consensus”) theories are later proved wrong- but either way science tends to move toward the truth.

    (CD: The difference between the fundamental sciences and entrepreneurship, and daily action is that fundamental science is a luxury good, the findings of which may propagate through the polity over time – but daily action in life has no such luxury of time and cost – we must produce returns. This conflict illustrates the problem of our evolutionary demand for action influencing our overconfidence in science, and conversely, our science ignoring time and cost. )

    25. Under Bayes’ theorem, no theory is perfect. Rather, it is a work in progress, always subject to further refinement and testing.

    (CD: I knew bayes first, Godel second, hayek third, popper fourt, and kuhn fifth. Bayes provides accounting on one end, then popper, then kuhn, and then hayek on the other end. Only during the past twenty years have we understood the brain’s mixture of elementary composition and spatial attribution. Same process, different scales. It’s not just bayesian – it’s the only possible epistemological method and everything else is a legacy failure we call ‘justificationism’.)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-18 08:35:00 UTC

  • Silent Running, Mission to Mars, Screamers, Futureworld, The Brood, Scanners, Th

    Silent Running, Mission to Mars, Screamers, Futureworld, The Brood, Scanners, The Entity, They Live, The Hidden, The Dead Zone, Dreamscape, Brazil, From Beyond, Leviathan, Deep Star Six, Fortress, Timescape, Doctor Mordrid, Brainscan, No Escape, The Arrival, Mimic, The Relic, Cube, Deep Rising, The Time Shifters, The Cell, Supernova, Equilibrium, Ultraviolet, Primer, Serenity, Children of Men, The Thirteenth Floor, Push, Pandorum, Cargo, Moon, Another Earth, Europa Report, Prometheus, Snowpiercer, The Machine, Banshee Chapter, Listening, What Happened to Monday


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 21:50:00 UTC

  • EMPTY CRITICISMS TO OBSCURE UNSATISFIED DEMAND I NEVER SET OUT TO SUPPLY —“I t

    EMPTY CRITICISMS TO OBSCURE UNSATISFIED DEMAND I NEVER SET OUT TO SUPPLY

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose.

    But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason.

    P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it.

    You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 21:28:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle wrote on a timeline

    Curt Doolittle wrote on a timeline.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 20:10:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/72432833_486667545263474_13354033005

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/72432833_486667545263474_1335403300530421760_o_486667538596808.jpg THE NAIL.THE NAIL.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 17:44:00 UTC

  • Alba Rising just stated the obvious that wasn’t obvious to me: John Mark Dresses

    Alba Rising just stated the obvious that wasn’t obvious to me: John Mark Dresses as a big Red Pill. 😉

    lol


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 17:23:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: —“Curt I have a question for you. Do you think that there is any pos

    QUESTION: —“Curt I have a question for you. Do you think that there is any possibility of a tyrant getting in charge of the USA should it descend into civil war for separation? Or do we think this can be done by democratic processes in place? The latter one I think realistically doesn’t have a chance.”—

    There is a possibility of democratic process *IF* we propose a solution that is a superior alternative to certain conflict. This is what I hope to do. But the public won’t accept that until the conflict is certain. Which will happen soon.

    Any democrat is by definition a tyrant, because any rule by legislation rather than rule by law of reciprocity is by definition despotism.

    My hope, and most probable is a military takeover of the government. The problem is that the military needs something to enforce. So we must provide them with the market demand (up rising), moral license (to prevent chaos and civil war), and solution (that they can enforce to maintain the peace).

    We will need to act before the election. That’s all I can tell you. And that is why I’m working so hard to get enough done to provide that solution – at the last minute.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 17:21:00 UTC

  • WRITING NONFICTION BOOKS It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely yo

    WRITING NONFICTION BOOKS

    It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely you can write a paper. Its likely if you can write a series of papers that you can combine them into a book. Most of the time a paper is sufficient for a book. A book merely provides a set of historical examples, or hypothetical examples, that illustrate the sequence of dependencies on the one and and applications on the other.

    So, learn to write arguments (2pp). Then combine arguments into a paper (20pp), then papers into a book (200pp+).

    Most authors write books to document their learning experience. This is different from pretense that you have a problem figured out until you have finished your learning experience, accumulated sets of arguments, sets of papers (arguments in context) and can combine them into a book (narrations of examples past and potential that illustrate each argument and paper).

    There is a reason all libertarian books are introductory. There is a reason all feminist and anti-western authors write in postmodern prose. There is a reason philosophy is written in rationalism rather than the law of reciprocity. So that they can lie. Conversely, there is a reason hard science is written in operational language – so they cannot lie.

    cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 15:55:00 UTC