Source: Original Site Post

  • Moral Language As Attempted Fraud?

    Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm

    —“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—

    (Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. )

      I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t

    IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)
    • I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
    • I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
    • As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
    There is no possible justification for belief. There is possible justification for moral action according to norms. There is possible justification for legal action according to laws. But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy. Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language. But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda. (ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.) So to speak truthfully requires we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak either in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, because we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especially in empire America. If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did. Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
  • Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t

    IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)
    • I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
    • I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
    • As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
    There is no possible justification for belief. There is possible justification for moral action according to norms. There is possible justification for legal action according to laws. But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy. Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language. But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda. (ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.) So to speak truthfully requires we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak either in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, because we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especially in empire America. If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did. Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
  • Informational Content in Operationalism vs Empiricism

    Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

  • Informational Content in Operationalism vs Empiricism

    Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

  • Classical Liberal Conservative Libertarian

    I AM A CONTRACTUALIST: A CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN. If you want to classify me, I am a contractualist. This means a classical liberal, libertarian. I am conservative because I’m an empiricist. And I am a Nationalist because I’m from a germanic, martial class by intuition, and because as an empiricist I understand the superior ability to govern contractually under homogeneity. So I know how my work on truthfulness sounds to contemporary people, just as I am aware how Darwin, Hume, Machiavelli, and Socrates were considered immoral people, and how western contractualism in its current degraded form, sounds immoral to less advanced peoples. If I **DIDN”T** make you feel a moral twinge, then I wouldn’t be advancing human understanding by reordering values. The difference is that I’m trying to improve human conditions for prosperity not dominate others, harm others, or even exclude others. The problem is that exclusion of differences in strategies is necessary for the development of the prosperity and peace that contractualism provides for us. Curt Doolittle

  • Classical Liberal Conservative Libertarian

    I AM A CONTRACTUALIST: A CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN. If you want to classify me, I am a contractualist. This means a classical liberal, libertarian. I am conservative because I’m an empiricist. And I am a Nationalist because I’m from a germanic, martial class by intuition, and because as an empiricist I understand the superior ability to govern contractually under homogeneity. So I know how my work on truthfulness sounds to contemporary people, just as I am aware how Darwin, Hume, Machiavelli, and Socrates were considered immoral people, and how western contractualism in its current degraded form, sounds immoral to less advanced peoples. If I **DIDN”T** make you feel a moral twinge, then I wouldn’t be advancing human understanding by reordering values. The difference is that I’m trying to improve human conditions for prosperity not dominate others, harm others, or even exclude others. The problem is that exclusion of differences in strategies is necessary for the development of the prosperity and peace that contractualism provides for us. Curt Doolittle

  • Another Damning Criticism of Philosophy

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology. Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened. So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete. Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is: 1 – categorically consistent (identity) 2 – internally consistent (logically consistent) 3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent) 4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated) A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining: 5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony) And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining: 6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality) So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights. However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language. Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration. So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit. And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.  


    (comments)The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.


    if you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.We attempt to advoicate and inform, and prohibibit and prosecute.As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.


    Davin Eastley: You’re turning into Nietzsche 2.0, Curt – the anti-philosophy philosopher!Curt Doolittle:  I’m just trying to eliminate room from lying from philosophy. And when I do that it turns into science.


    Patrick Martins: That being said, who’s your favorite philosopher?Curt Doolittle: Hmm. Interesting question. I don’t have high opinions of many. I can say I have been most influenced by Hayek and popper. But I tend to read science, not philosophy.

  • Another Damning Criticism of Philosophy

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology. Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened. So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete. Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is: 1 – categorically consistent (identity) 2 – internally consistent (logically consistent) 3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent) 4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated) A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining: 5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony) And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining: 6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality) So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights. However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language. Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration. So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit. And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.  


    (comments)The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.


    if you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.We attempt to advoicate and inform, and prohibibit and prosecute.As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.


    Davin Eastley: You’re turning into Nietzsche 2.0, Curt – the anti-philosophy philosopher!Curt Doolittle:  I’m just trying to eliminate room from lying from philosophy. And when I do that it turns into science.


    Patrick Martins: That being said, who’s your favorite philosopher?Curt Doolittle: Hmm. Interesting question. I don’t have high opinions of many. I can say I have been most influenced by Hayek and popper. But I tend to read science, not philosophy.

  • Restoring Civic Organizations

    RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPOLY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY. We need to force the creation of (a) monasteries (education and caretaking) in the ‘scientific’ sense, and (b) regiments (emergency and defense), and (c) civic dormitories (commons construction and maintenance). These places need to provide room and board to men of character in each class, in exchange for civic labor. Strict behavioral requirements, preserving the sacredness of the commons, (and suppressing impulse), Privately managed non-profits (leaving membership discretionary and without state interference). They will absorb the excess male population that will only serve to increase, increase the scarcity of marriageable males, reduce the size and cost of the state, reduce the cost of commons construction and maintenance, improve the general health and welfare, allow us to return to handcrafted hand-maintained commons.And restore civic ‘ownership’. If in addition, we eliminate child support and alimony, the family will be restored in one or two generations. And where it isn’t we don’t need it to be.

    I have learned a great deal living on this side of the pond. The old ways assisted families in classes in compatibility, they were not industrialized societies trying to mass produce middle class from variously incompatible raw materials.