Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Externalities And Keynesian Economics In Context Of Information And Decidability

     

    [I]n price-theory, an externality is any benefit or loss not included in the price of the exchange.

    But we can debate whether economics is the study of investment, production, distribution, trade, and consumption, or whether economics is the model under which all social science, from metaphysics, to psychology, to epistemology, to ethics, sociology, law, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and conflict – the entire model for the entire philosophical spectrum.

    There remains a conflict between the pseudoscientific(postmodern epistemology, freudian psychology, boazian sociology, marxist political science,) and the scientific social sciences all operating within the single branch of inquiry we call “economics”. (the study of information, incentives, and cooperation).

    Since I do understand that economics as a discipline of social science functions as the scientific competitor to the pseudoscientific social sciences, I work with INFORMATION in total, not with PRICES alone. And I extend economic models to include INFORMATION of all kinds, and the consequences of changes in information.

    I am fairly certain that this is the CORRECT (meaning true) framing for the general rules which we work to discover in that discipline we ‘archaically’ call economics.

    Information is the model in the physical sciences, and information is likewise the model in the social sciences. The fact that Mises, Popper and Hayek did not quite bring this idea to fruition, and why, is one of the great intellectual failings of history – if only because it allowed the competing pseudosciences to gain predominance in our academy and as a consequence, policy.

    IN CONTEXT: EXTERNALITIES
    In the context of my talk, and in the context of my arguments, there is no difference between the increases or decreases in capital, and the voluntary or involuntary transfers of that capital, by INFORMATION rather than that SUBSET of information that we call PRICES.

    In other words, the general rule describing the externalities of prices is but a subset of the general rule describing the externalities of all information.

    And unintended consequences are a question of scope of INTENTION, not a question of the scope of the consequences of INFORMATION.

    (if you understand this I don’t really require an apology because I realize this is non-trivial material. I make very few errors. But I am always constrained by the limits of time and circumstance and I cannot explain every concept that I rely upon in every utterance I make. It’s just not possible. )

    NOW ONTO KEYNESIANISM 
    Just as I rely on information to produce conditions of DECIDABILITY, I also explain the differences between the natural law (mengerian/austrian), rule of law (friedmanite/chicago), and discretionary rule (keynesian/freshwater) branches of economic theory. In each of these theoretical systems the originators relied upon a method of decidability (or what in math is called ‘axiom of choice’) in order to justify the use of their model over the competing models.

    The Natural Law group takes the position of do no harm (do not ‘lie’ using the pricing system).

    The Rule of Law group takes the position of do as little harm as possible, so that we are not lying but ‘correcting’ information problems under rule of law. So that there is a trade between the disinformation we provide and the information system we call prices and incentives. It seeks to restore a condition of natural law.

    The Discretionary Rule group (Keynesians) take the position that any disinformation we produce now, produces such profound gains, that it’s not only immoral to resist using disinformation, but that its unlikely that any negative consequences we produce would be outweighed by intertemporal gains, that we can fix those problems we cause later on with the proceeds.

    Under this model of economics, decidability in economic theory that is not provided by the axiomatic model is provided by an axiom of choice: ie: subjective valuation.

    This issue of decidability is not solved yet although the general austrian prescription that we cannot in fact ‘cheat’, seems to be correct given the increasing duration and severity of depressions. This is why the debate has calmed so significantly since 2008’s crisis. The mainstream relies upon keyensian decidability to justify increased rates of consumption at the expense of genetic, normative, and institutional capital degradation, under the assumption of genetic, normative, and (possible) institutional equality.
    (which if stated this way, is clearly false).

    It has only been since the worldwide abandonment of marxist economics, and the worldwide adoption of consumer capitalism, and fiat credit, that the west’s asymmetrical technological advantage let us assume that the trend of constant growth was available to us without intertemporal consequences.

    KEYNESIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDABILITY

    So, when I spoke of Keynesianism it is the method of decidability that I was referring to.

    Again, I tend not to make mistakes. I make many mistakes of brevity, and there are many unintended consequences of my brevity. But all common communication requires information loss or the burden would silence us.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Belief In Libertarian Models Doesn’t Matter, Survival From Competition Does.



    —“Which libertarian model do you believe in?”—

    [R]emember that the way you test a theory is not way finding to justify it but like composing a novel throwing obstacles in front of to see if it can survive.

    It does not matter what we believe. It matters only what order can survive in completion with other orders.

    Libertarians spend a lot of time discussing the best taste, but no one has yet succeeded in baking a libertarian cake.

    There is a reason why libertarians discuss belief and taste and not action and recipe.

    It’s because any attempt to construct the recipe informs the analyst that it cannot result in such a cake.

    Libertarianism like socialism and neoconservatism is just a utopian secular religion and not an institutional model that can survive competition in a market for polities.

    We talk about markets but we do not model our own intellectual product by the same standard.

  • Belief In Libertarian Models Doesn’t Matter, Survival From Competition Does.



    —“Which libertarian model do you believe in?”—

    [R]emember that the way you test a theory is not way finding to justify it but like composing a novel throwing obstacles in front of to see if it can survive.

    It does not matter what we believe. It matters only what order can survive in completion with other orders.

    Libertarians spend a lot of time discussing the best taste, but no one has yet succeeded in baking a libertarian cake.

    There is a reason why libertarians discuss belief and taste and not action and recipe.

    It’s because any attempt to construct the recipe informs the analyst that it cannot result in such a cake.

    Libertarianism like socialism and neoconservatism is just a utopian secular religion and not an institutional model that can survive competition in a market for polities.

    We talk about markets but we do not model our own intellectual product by the same standard.

  • Why Do I Care About The Working Class?

    [W]e are compatible, and we need each other. Some of us work, some of us manage, some of us calculate and design, some of us organize, and some of us decide what to organize, calculate and design, manage, and labor upon.

    It is when we successfully determine a method by which each of us benefits by cooperating with the rest rather than cooperating with others on competing opportunities to perform labor, management, calculation, organization and decision, that we are not only compatible but necessary to one another.

    Aristocracy operated empirically: by compatibilism. Compatibility in reproduction (the family as unit of reproduction), in defense (the hierarchy of command), in production (the hierarchy of organization of production), and in politics (the hierarchy of the classes) while preserving voluntary participation in the selection of mates, in the joining of the army, in the participation in the work force, and between the houses of government.

    Voluntary compatibilism as a method of ‘calculating’ the optimum Nash outcome on an ongoing basis.

    The western aristocratic model was scientific. Until the 20th century.

    I care about the working class because THEY WILL FIGHT. Why? becasue elites create the competitive difference for the working classes, and if they fight for their elites, and they choose the right elites, then they will live under better conditions than if others choose better elites, or if they themselves choose worse elites.

    The problem of american life is that the socialists successfully enfranchised the labor movement and converted compatitiblity to incompatibility – they choose to divide and conquer us, forcing our elites to abandon our working classes.

    If we want a revolution we must act compatibly. We must have elites that decide and organize, middle classes that calculate and theorize, and working classes that manage and act.

    Our name is Legion. And we are many.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Why Do I Care About The Working Class?

    [W]e are compatible, and we need each other. Some of us work, some of us manage, some of us calculate and design, some of us organize, and some of us decide what to organize, calculate and design, manage, and labor upon.

    It is when we successfully determine a method by which each of us benefits by cooperating with the rest rather than cooperating with others on competing opportunities to perform labor, management, calculation, organization and decision, that we are not only compatible but necessary to one another.

    Aristocracy operated empirically: by compatibilism. Compatibility in reproduction (the family as unit of reproduction), in defense (the hierarchy of command), in production (the hierarchy of organization of production), and in politics (the hierarchy of the classes) while preserving voluntary participation in the selection of mates, in the joining of the army, in the participation in the work force, and between the houses of government.

    Voluntary compatibilism as a method of ‘calculating’ the optimum Nash outcome on an ongoing basis.

    The western aristocratic model was scientific. Until the 20th century.

    I care about the working class because THEY WILL FIGHT. Why? becasue elites create the competitive difference for the working classes, and if they fight for their elites, and they choose the right elites, then they will live under better conditions than if others choose better elites, or if they themselves choose worse elites.

    The problem of american life is that the socialists successfully enfranchised the labor movement and converted compatitiblity to incompatibility – they choose to divide and conquer us, forcing our elites to abandon our working classes.

    If we want a revolution we must act compatibly. We must have elites that decide and organize, middle classes that calculate and theorize, and working classes that manage and act.

    Our name is Legion. And we are many.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Chemistry, and Doing The Dishes

    [T]he subject I know the least about is chemistry. Why? For very simple reasons: while there is an intellectual component that is akin to three-dimensional puzzle-solving, the existential feature of chemistry is dishwashing.

    Now, aside from the fact that as an autist I really don’t like to get my hands dirty – it’s over-stimulating in a way that normals can’t understand; as a child, we had to wash the dishes after supper, and my father was a bit of a tyrant about it.

    Chemistry involves dirtying a lot of dishes that need cleaning, and that unlike the joy of cooking, produces all sorts of smells, and burns, and other nasty consequences that someone with intense experiences just has a problem with.

    I can diagnose a Ferrari engine pretty accurately just by listening to it idle in an enclosed space. I can criticize any artwork past or present. I’m an adequate if messy cook. And I’m hella-scary with what we can claim is true or not.

    But I’m comfortable not working with chemistry really. Because I’m uncomfortable doing dishes.

  • Chemistry, and Doing The Dishes

    [T]he subject I know the least about is chemistry. Why? For very simple reasons: while there is an intellectual component that is akin to three-dimensional puzzle-solving, the existential feature of chemistry is dishwashing.

    Now, aside from the fact that as an autist I really don’t like to get my hands dirty – it’s over-stimulating in a way that normals can’t understand; as a child, we had to wash the dishes after supper, and my father was a bit of a tyrant about it.

    Chemistry involves dirtying a lot of dishes that need cleaning, and that unlike the joy of cooking, produces all sorts of smells, and burns, and other nasty consequences that someone with intense experiences just has a problem with.

    I can diagnose a Ferrari engine pretty accurately just by listening to it idle in an enclosed space. I can criticize any artwork past or present. I’m an adequate if messy cook. And I’m hella-scary with what we can claim is true or not.

    But I’m comfortable not working with chemistry really. Because I’m uncomfortable doing dishes.

  • Philosophy: Continental Imaginative Literature(positive) Priests Vs Analytic Critical Law(negative) Judges


    [P]hilosophers function as intellectual police, detectives, judges, and sometimes executioners. Although I have had literary (nonsense) philosophers criticize me for the position, endlessly.

    If philosophy does not consist in the study of how to speak the truth by discovering how we avoid error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit, then it is just fiction-writing that conflates religion, literature, and pseudoscience.

    Just as judges may discover general rules (natural law) by solving problems of conflict; and just as physicists discover general rules of determinism by solving problems of extending perception (physical laws); our philosophers discover general rules of reason (rational laws) by solving problems of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

    Our function is to police the intellectual sphere for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    I am not sure we can classify literary dreamers, hypothesizers, inventors as philosophers. We do. But they give us a bad name.

    This is the correct positioning of the philosophical disciplines. Aspirational Literary Religon and Critical Analytic Law.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Philosophy: Continental Imaginative Literature(positive) Priests Vs Analytic Critical Law(negative) Judges


    [P]hilosophers function as intellectual police, detectives, judges, and sometimes executioners. Although I have had literary (nonsense) philosophers criticize me for the position, endlessly.

    If philosophy does not consist in the study of how to speak the truth by discovering how we avoid error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit, then it is just fiction-writing that conflates religion, literature, and pseudoscience.

    Just as judges may discover general rules (natural law) by solving problems of conflict; and just as physicists discover general rules of determinism by solving problems of extending perception (physical laws); our philosophers discover general rules of reason (rational laws) by solving problems of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

    Our function is to police the intellectual sphere for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    I am not sure we can classify literary dreamers, hypothesizers, inventors as philosophers. We do. But they give us a bad name.

    This is the correct positioning of the philosophical disciplines. Aspirational Literary Religon and Critical Analytic Law.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Repositioning Economics, Sociology, Philosophy and Law

    [S]o today I have discussed repositioning economics as social science, and social science as pseudoscience. And repositioning philosophy as positive aspirational literature of rationalist priests, and negative critical law, of empirical judges. This mirrors the epistemological method of creative free association to arrive at hypothesis, and criticism to test theories in the hope of discovering laws from that survives. This mirrors the moral method of doing unto others as we would like done unto us(aspirational), and not doing unto others that which we would not want done unto us (critical). Economics is merely the method by which we voluntarily cooperate in order to accumulate and use the knowledge from all individuals across the reproductive spectrum. But it ignores the three roles of Negative force, neutral exchange, Positive advocacy. Ergo: Women’s Dreams, Brother’s Trades, Father’s Limits. Yin(female) and Yang(male) do not balance in static harmony. We move through time in a continuous process of discovery. It is this difference that separated static east from dynamic west. 

    Lover, warrior, judge, King  Queen, teacher, mother, lover.
..............................|
..............................V
................Brother, Partner, Maker, Trader......

    Not bad work to accomplish before lunch. 😉 Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute