Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • A Short Course in Propertarian Morality

    (learning propertarianism) (amoral morality) [M]orality: 1) WHY DON’T I KILL YOU AND TAKE YOUR STUFF? http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-first-question-of-eth…/

    2) THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-first-principles-of-p…/ ( skip the unfinished sections near the end with only “( )” ) 3) THE SCARCITY OF COOPERATION: MORALITY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-central-argument-to-t…/ 4) THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION (NECESSARY MORAL INTUITIONS AND RULES) http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-evolution-of-cooperat…/ 5) MORAL RULES ARE NECESSARY AND ABSOLUTE – EVERYTHING ELSE IS GROUP TACTICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/moral-objectivity-or-rela…/ 6) THE LEGAL BASIS OF UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-vs-rothba…/ 7) THE MEANING OF INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-meaning-of-incrementa…/ 8) THE ONLY MEANS OF CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY: INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-only-means-of-elimina…/ 9) THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-transaction-cost-theo…/ 10) LAWS VS CONTRACTS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/laws-prohibit-involuntary…/ 11) THE LAW MUST BE DISCOVERED, ONLY CONTRACTS CAN BE MADE http://www.propertarianism.com/…/law-exists-but-must-be-fo…/ 12) THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND THE RESTORATION OF THE WEST http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-cure-for-propaganda-a…/ 13) THE END OF HISTORY IS THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-end-of-history-the-tr…/

  • Education: We Do It Wrong.

    [W]e do it wrong. 1) Reading and writing. 2) Testimony( witness, grammar, rhetoric, logic, moral law, contract). 3) History(technical,organizational,economic,artistic). 4) Arithmetic( arithmetic, checkbooks, accounting, credit and interest, banking), 5) Mathematics(algebra, trigonometry, statistics, calculus), 6) Economics (micro-economics, institutions of cooperation, macro-economics). 7) Physics(physics, chemistry, biology). Note the absence of politics and indoctrination.

    Get a job as young as you can. Youth employment not immigrant employment. Elderly employment, not immigrant employment. Travel for a year or two in your late teens. Borrowing to travel is the best investment you can make in your youth. Parochialism is the greatest liability you can most easily overcome. ( Look at the Mormons ) Or do two years in military service learning emergency skills, crowd control, civil defense, and the basics of weapons, fire, movement, communication and fitness. Then go to college. If you go to college you can learn a skill: a quantitative discipline. Or you can seek entertainment: non-quantitative fields. College is a *shitty* filter with not enough variation in filtration. Little of it is useful. And universities teach and distribute cathedral ignorance. Learning selflessness, cooperation, variation, emergency and fighting teaches you to be successful regardless of what technical skill you possess. Then learn a technical skill: the hardest that you can manage and feel confident in using.

  • Education: We Do It Wrong.

    [W]e do it wrong. 1) Reading and writing. 2) Testimony( witness, grammar, rhetoric, logic, moral law, contract). 3) History(technical,organizational,economic,artistic). 4) Arithmetic( arithmetic, checkbooks, accounting, credit and interest, banking), 5) Mathematics(algebra, trigonometry, statistics, calculus), 6) Economics (micro-economics, institutions of cooperation, macro-economics). 7) Physics(physics, chemistry, biology). Note the absence of politics and indoctrination.

    Get a job as young as you can. Youth employment not immigrant employment. Elderly employment, not immigrant employment. Travel for a year or two in your late teens. Borrowing to travel is the best investment you can make in your youth. Parochialism is the greatest liability you can most easily overcome. ( Look at the Mormons ) Or do two years in military service learning emergency skills, crowd control, civil defense, and the basics of weapons, fire, movement, communication and fitness. Then go to college. If you go to college you can learn a skill: a quantitative discipline. Or you can seek entertainment: non-quantitative fields. College is a *shitty* filter with not enough variation in filtration. Little of it is useful. And universities teach and distribute cathedral ignorance. Learning selflessness, cooperation, variation, emergency and fighting teaches you to be successful regardless of what technical skill you possess. Then learn a technical skill: the hardest that you can manage and feel confident in using.

  • Elegant New Weapon in the Anti-Krugman Wars

    —“The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago’s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman’s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders” have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the jobbut “uncertainty” increases and this reduces investment.”—Matthew Kahn

    [I]n other words, the Chicago program seeks to define rules that will eliminate discretion. The MIT program seeks to identify opportunities for discretion. Rule of law = Lack of Discretion.

    I wasn’t able to come up with that myself. And it’s wonderful.

    MORE

    ANTI-KRUGMAN — THIS IS SO GOOD THAT I HAVE TO POST MORE OF IT.

     —-“At M.I.T., however, Keynes never went away. To be sure, stagflation showed that there were limits to what policy can do. But students continued to learn about the imperfections of markets and the role that monetary and fiscal policy can play in boosting a depressed economy. And the M.I.T. students of the 1970s enlarged on those insights in their later work. Mr. Blanchard, for example, showed how small deviations from perfect rationality can have large economic consequences; Mr. Obstfeld showed that currency markets can sometimes experience self-fulfilling panic.”—-Paul Krugman 

    “Point #1 Note the eagerness to introduce ideas from behavioral economics into economic policy making. A dangerous precedent arises here. If the “people are foolish“, then this creates an ugly elitist possibility that only the wise technocrats (the MIT graduates) can protect us. I don‘t like this worldview on a number of levels. Moral hazard lurks when sophisticated investors and economic decision makers are aware that the technocrats will step in and “save the world“ when ugly economic events take place (such as a plunging stock market, or rising unemployment). 

    “Point #2: The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago‘s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman‘s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders“ have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the job but “uncertainty“ increases and this reduces investment. 

    “Point #3; Dr. Krugman also refuses to acknowledge the power of Ed Prescott‘s work on time consistency and policy. Clear rules of the game create dynamically stable rules and this fosters investment. In Dr. Krugman‘s short run focus on the business cycle, he ignores the long run growth implications caused by the activist policies that he supports. 

    “Point #4; In the absence of randomized trials, the MIT trained technocrats (the 5 people listed above) do not actually know what policies are effective in mitigating business cycles. If they know that they do not know how the macro economy really works, then does this affect Dr. Krugman‘s optimism that MIT has won the policy debates. His piece isn‘t that modest (or honest) about the modeling uncertainty that now exists in modern macro economics. He makes the past debates sound settled. If he attended MIT‘s current 1st year PHD macro sequence, he would see a variety of different models being worked on and taught and I bet that the policy conclusions are very sensitive to the modeling choices.” —- Matthew Kahn (Environmental and Urban Economics )

  • Elegant New Weapon in the Anti-Krugman Wars

    —“The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago’s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman’s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders” have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the jobbut “uncertainty” increases and this reduces investment.”—Matthew Kahn

    [I]n other words, the Chicago program seeks to define rules that will eliminate discretion. The MIT program seeks to identify opportunities for discretion. Rule of law = Lack of Discretion.

    I wasn’t able to come up with that myself. And it’s wonderful.

    MORE

    ANTI-KRUGMAN — THIS IS SO GOOD THAT I HAVE TO POST MORE OF IT.

     —-“At M.I.T., however, Keynes never went away. To be sure, stagflation showed that there were limits to what policy can do. But students continued to learn about the imperfections of markets and the role that monetary and fiscal policy can play in boosting a depressed economy. And the M.I.T. students of the 1970s enlarged on those insights in their later work. Mr. Blanchard, for example, showed how small deviations from perfect rationality can have large economic consequences; Mr. Obstfeld showed that currency markets can sometimes experience self-fulfilling panic.”—-Paul Krugman 

    “Point #1 Note the eagerness to introduce ideas from behavioral economics into economic policy making. A dangerous precedent arises here. If the “people are foolish“, then this creates an ugly elitist possibility that only the wise technocrats (the MIT graduates) can protect us. I don‘t like this worldview on a number of levels. Moral hazard lurks when sophisticated investors and economic decision makers are aware that the technocrats will step in and “save the world“ when ugly economic events take place (such as a plunging stock market, or rising unemployment). 

    “Point #2: The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago‘s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman‘s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders“ have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the job but “uncertainty“ increases and this reduces investment. 

    “Point #3; Dr. Krugman also refuses to acknowledge the power of Ed Prescott‘s work on time consistency and policy. Clear rules of the game create dynamically stable rules and this fosters investment. In Dr. Krugman‘s short run focus on the business cycle, he ignores the long run growth implications caused by the activist policies that he supports. 

    “Point #4; In the absence of randomized trials, the MIT trained technocrats (the 5 people listed above) do not actually know what policies are effective in mitigating business cycles. If they know that they do not know how the macro economy really works, then does this affect Dr. Krugman‘s optimism that MIT has won the policy debates. His piece isn‘t that modest (or honest) about the modeling uncertainty that now exists in modern macro economics. He makes the past debates sound settled. If he attended MIT‘s current 1st year PHD macro sequence, he would see a variety of different models being worked on and taught and I bet that the policy conclusions are very sensitive to the modeling choices.” —- Matthew Kahn (Environmental and Urban Economics )

  • Q&A: Curt I Don’t Understand Your Criticism of Mises

    QUESTION

    —“I’ve seen you criticize Mises and I’m not sure I’ve fully understood your critique. Would it be fair to compare your criticism to modern science’s correction of the Greeks? I’m referring to the definition of modern science as inductive reasoning based on observation (empiricism) in contrast to the Greeks’ deduction based on self-evident truth. (Intuition vs. sensory information)”—

    ANSWER [W]ell, if it was easily reducible to something simple, someone would have figured this problem out before. And it wouldn’t have stumped mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others in other fields.”—

      [I] could be lazy and point you to the series of posts on this topic: http://www.propertarianism.com/propertarian-posts-by-chapt…/ Scroll down to (or search for) “REFORMING THE SCIENCES” That section covers it pretty thoroughly. [O]r, I could try to make it easy for you and point you to this single post: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/mises-praxeology-as-the-f…/ [O]r, I could spend a little effort and tell you that a whole bunch of philosophers failed to expand the scientific method in the 19th and 20th when our means of instrumental measurement exceeded our understanding of the limits of our perceptions. Mises is one of the philosophers who failed. In failing he created a pseudoscience. Whereas the others merely failed to understand what they had discovered. Economics is as empirical as any other science. But just as we cannot state that a formula is existentially possible in mathematics without a proof that it can be constructed from possible mathematical operations, we cannot state that an economic statement is possible if we cannot construct it from possible human operations. Conversely, we cannot possibly deduce all of economics. Yet we can explain all of economics if we try. Mises made a profound mistake of conflating a negative test – a form of falsification – with a positive means of discovery. He made the error all germans did: that justification can be used in matters of science. It cannot be. Contracts and moral arguments can be justified, but truth propositions merely survive criticism. This is a very advanced bit of a failure of philosophy in intellectual history so it’s not trivial to grasp. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Q&A: Curt I Don’t Understand Your Criticism of Mises

    QUESTION

    —“I’ve seen you criticize Mises and I’m not sure I’ve fully understood your critique. Would it be fair to compare your criticism to modern science’s correction of the Greeks? I’m referring to the definition of modern science as inductive reasoning based on observation (empiricism) in contrast to the Greeks’ deduction based on self-evident truth. (Intuition vs. sensory information)”—

    ANSWER [W]ell, if it was easily reducible to something simple, someone would have figured this problem out before. And it wouldn’t have stumped mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others in other fields.”—

      [I] could be lazy and point you to the series of posts on this topic: http://www.propertarianism.com/propertarian-posts-by-chapt…/ Scroll down to (or search for) “REFORMING THE SCIENCES” That section covers it pretty thoroughly. [O]r, I could try to make it easy for you and point you to this single post: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/mises-praxeology-as-the-f…/ [O]r, I could spend a little effort and tell you that a whole bunch of philosophers failed to expand the scientific method in the 19th and 20th when our means of instrumental measurement exceeded our understanding of the limits of our perceptions. Mises is one of the philosophers who failed. In failing he created a pseudoscience. Whereas the others merely failed to understand what they had discovered. Economics is as empirical as any other science. But just as we cannot state that a formula is existentially possible in mathematics without a proof that it can be constructed from possible mathematical operations, we cannot state that an economic statement is possible if we cannot construct it from possible human operations. Conversely, we cannot possibly deduce all of economics. Yet we can explain all of economics if we try. Mises made a profound mistake of conflating a negative test – a form of falsification – with a positive means of discovery. He made the error all germans did: that justification can be used in matters of science. It cannot be. Contracts and moral arguments can be justified, but truth propositions merely survive criticism. This is a very advanced bit of a failure of philosophy in intellectual history so it’s not trivial to grasp. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Thoughts on RamzPaul’s Guide to the Dark Enlightenment

    [R]AMZPAUL’S POINTS (See Video: https://gloria.tv/media/7TcJehsj2GJ_ 1) The term Counter-Enlightenment was taken already. But the Dark Enlightenment is a counter-enlightenment movement. The Dark Enlightenment. (I disagree with conflating the dark ages and the middle ages. Western civic society is largely the result of the late middle ages, not dark ages.) 2) The Cathedral includes the Academy, The Media, The State, The Deep State. 3) The Religion of the Cathedral is Cultural Marxism : Having failed scientifically (Scientific Socialism), Having failed organizationally (Syndicalism), Having failed through Postmodernism (lying) AND having started with demand for access to opportunity, expanded their demands to equality of opportunity, and having expanded their demands to equality of outcome, and failing because of the empirical difference in ability between individuals, the only solution was to import vast numbers of underclass people from the third world, encourage single motherhood, destroy the family, and create dependence upon the state sufficient that the state could take control of all functions in life. 3) Red Pill : Accepting the truth of the evidence of man’s behavior and abandoning the enlightenment fallacies. 4) Inequality and Diversity: People are empirically unequal, and Diversity empirically decreases trust and increases demand for tyranny. (The reason we are unequal is largely the difference in rates of reproduction of our classes. While homo-sapiens of the various races are similar, we vary in the success at suppressing our underclass reproduction. Those who succeed have advanced societies, and those who failed have impoverished societies. The cold solved this problem for us. The underclasses are a problem. Everywhere and always.) 5) Democracy: Democracy is the worst possible system because it is dependent upon lies not reality or scientific reality, and surrenders control to the lower classes and elites who pander to them. CURT DOOLITTLE’S EXPLANATIONS The purpose of the enlightenment: 0) To end the Aristocratic Rule of the Landed Monarchies, and the Landed Church. 1) To justify the middle class takeover of government (means of producing commons) from the landed aristocracy. 2) To justify the diminution of religion and religious mysticism in favor of science and reason, assisting in the middle class takeover of the government. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment 1) That it was possible to create an aristocracy of everyone. It’s not possible because meritocracy is not in the interest of the underclasses. Parasitism is. The Institutional Error 1) Instead of creating a new house for the middle class, and then a new house for proletarians, which would have made it possible for classes to conduct exchanges, we created a single house with majority rule and as a consequence, found that the lower classes, and women in particular had no interest in the aristocracy everyone, and instead, voted to incrementally destroy the aristocratic civilization we call ‘the west’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Thoughts on RamzPaul’s Guide to the Dark Enlightenment

    [R]AMZPAUL’S POINTS (See Video: https://gloria.tv/media/7TcJehsj2GJ_ 1) The term Counter-Enlightenment was taken already. But the Dark Enlightenment is a counter-enlightenment movement. The Dark Enlightenment. (I disagree with conflating the dark ages and the middle ages. Western civic society is largely the result of the late middle ages, not dark ages.) 2) The Cathedral includes the Academy, The Media, The State, The Deep State. 3) The Religion of the Cathedral is Cultural Marxism : Having failed scientifically (Scientific Socialism), Having failed organizationally (Syndicalism), Having failed through Postmodernism (lying) AND having started with demand for access to opportunity, expanded their demands to equality of opportunity, and having expanded their demands to equality of outcome, and failing because of the empirical difference in ability between individuals, the only solution was to import vast numbers of underclass people from the third world, encourage single motherhood, destroy the family, and create dependence upon the state sufficient that the state could take control of all functions in life. 3) Red Pill : Accepting the truth of the evidence of man’s behavior and abandoning the enlightenment fallacies. 4) Inequality and Diversity: People are empirically unequal, and Diversity empirically decreases trust and increases demand for tyranny. (The reason we are unequal is largely the difference in rates of reproduction of our classes. While homo-sapiens of the various races are similar, we vary in the success at suppressing our underclass reproduction. Those who succeed have advanced societies, and those who failed have impoverished societies. The cold solved this problem for us. The underclasses are a problem. Everywhere and always.) 5) Democracy: Democracy is the worst possible system because it is dependent upon lies not reality or scientific reality, and surrenders control to the lower classes and elites who pander to them. CURT DOOLITTLE’S EXPLANATIONS The purpose of the enlightenment: 0) To end the Aristocratic Rule of the Landed Monarchies, and the Landed Church. 1) To justify the middle class takeover of government (means of producing commons) from the landed aristocracy. 2) To justify the diminution of religion and religious mysticism in favor of science and reason, assisting in the middle class takeover of the government. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment 1) That it was possible to create an aristocracy of everyone. It’s not possible because meritocracy is not in the interest of the underclasses. Parasitism is. The Institutional Error 1) Instead of creating a new house for the middle class, and then a new house for proletarians, which would have made it possible for classes to conduct exchanges, we created a single house with majority rule and as a consequence, found that the lower classes, and women in particular had no interest in the aristocracy everyone, and instead, voted to incrementally destroy the aristocratic civilization we call ‘the west’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Destroyers of Truth and Trust

    —“That’s where the Politically Correct -shaming comes in. Making sure those that are not susceptible to lies are still brought under control by fear of social ostracism, loss of loved ones, deprivation of income and so on. The [progressives] are bastards, make even acknowledging the truth very expensive. “— James Santagata

    [T]hey destroy truth to destroy trust, to create demand for authoritarianism in order to resolve conflicts, that could be resolved by truth, and as a consequence to organize society according to their will.