Source: Original Site Post

Public Economics of Marriage
[M]arriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property. From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:
1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
3. A family can engage in (re)production.
4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).
Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off. QED.
July 20, 2015
Refreshing Memories: Charts.

July 19, 2015
Refreshing Memories: Charts.

July 19, 2015
We Have A Simple Choice

[T]ruth, Trade and Liberty (Propertarianism)

–vs–

[L]ies, Takings, and Authority (Socialism)

(Choose wisely.)

July 19, 2015
We Have A Simple Choice

[T]ruth, Trade and Liberty (Propertarianism)

–vs–

[L]ies, Takings, and Authority (Socialism)

(Choose wisely.)

July 19, 2015
What Is Critical Rationalism?

[C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London)

July 19, 2015
What Is Critical Rationalism?

[C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London)

July 19, 2015
How Can I Reform Critical Rationalists?

(important question) [I]s it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.
1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (theoretical darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards? 2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies? 3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery. I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not. Thanks Curt

July 19, 2015
How Can I Reform Critical Rationalists?

(important question) [I]s it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.
1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (theoretical darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards? 2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies? 3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery. I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not. Thanks Curt

July 19, 2015
Paul Krugman: Slow Roasting the West in Keynesian Ovens

(trigger warning)(run with this meme) [P]aul; It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading, framing and overloading them with moral falsehoods. You advocate institutional lying: the Keynesian economics of distorting the information system we use to cooperate so that we consume rather than accumulate capital; and you advocate theft on an epic scale: redistribution in lieu of voluntary exchanges between classes so that we accumulate normative capital rather than government scale. So I’m not saying you’re wrong – you do manage to state half truths. I’m saying you’re a lying, immoral fraud, a racist and a genocidalist. Putting people in ovens instead of showers is evil, immoral and dishonest. Putting people in economic and political ovens instead is just doing the same by slower means. I mean, you’re just a better liar, but you’re doing the same thing: genocide by lying.

Curt Doolittle (No way outta that box Paul. You’re done. Time to hang up the keyboard.)

July 19, 2015