Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • The Monty Hall Problem


    diagram

  • The Monty Hall Problem


    diagram

  • When Did The Us Become Such A Litigious Country?

    THIS IS A GOOD BUT MISUNDERSTOOD QUESTION

    America practices the common law of anglo saxon origin, in which all things are permitted except that which is extant in law.

    This is different from the rest of the world’s model – especially the Napoleonic – in which only that which is in law, is permitted.

    So what you see in Europe is a lot more regulation, and fewer legal disputes, and a lot less risk taking and experimentation. Whereas in America we have more risk taking and experimentation, and more litigation. 

    Frankly, the evidence is that our method is better.

    Where the government and law has fallen down is the laws of banking, credit and interest, in which the consumer is not sufficiently protected from an asymmetry of power, information, and incentives. 

    In my (hopefully) informed opinion, this is the central question we must address (consumer protection from financial predation) not our preference for consequent common law, versus antecedent legislative law.

    Only high trust societies can practice consequent common law.  THis is the anglo world’s greatest asset.  And we should never abandon it thinking that we understand it’s import or lack of.

    It is perhaps the greatest competitive advantage of our people.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-US-become-such-a-litigious-country

  • North America: Why Is The Dominant Racial/ethnic Narrative Between ‘white’ America And ‘black’ America When The State Of ‘native’ America Ought To Be Addressed First?

    There is no ‘ought’ in politics between groups.  Politics consists of: is, can, cannot between groups.  Oughts are an in-group question.  The reason being that while we may sacrifice for our kin (kin selection), we only cooperate with our non-kin (utilitarian).  If non-kin cause us sacrifice, then that is parasitism, not cooperation, and certainly not kin selection.

    The reason for the black white conflict is (a) the south was a very different civilization and the US government was funded by export duties provided by the south.  THe north was supplying manufactured goods to the expanding interior.   When Napoleon sold the Louisiana Purchase, it meant that the southern states with their agrarian biases, would gain allies in the newly created territories, and thereby overpower the northern states in government, causing a southern-run government. 

    Slavery was the ‘moral’ message that this political and economic conflict was couched within.  It was largely, if not purely, a distraction tactic.

    The defeat of the south aside, the major problem was the forcible integration of the races under the premise that we are genetically equal in ability and temperment, and that environment was the only factor (blank slate).

    Without that forcible integration it would not have been a problem.

    However, it turns out that the opposite is true, that between 60-80% of our behavior is genetically determined. That the remainder is not necessairly ‘environmental’ but something that we do not yet fully understand. And that groups (races, classes, tribes) form kinship alliances, and that within these alliances we see unequal distribution of talents – particularly, 1) impulsivity 2) aggression, 3) verbal intelligence, and less meaningfully, 4) Spatial intelligence. 

    So by forced integration we are unable to develop norms, memes, traditions, and habits that suit the individuals in the different groups. 

    These are the reasons for the conflict. No one complains about asians.  We complain about blacks and hispanics on one end, and jews on the other.  And native americans, because they are literally invisible, are irrelevant compared to the other conflicts.

    https://www.quora.com/North-America-Why-is-the-dominant-racial-ethnic-narrative-between-White-America-and-Black-America-when-the-state-of-Native-America-ought-to-be-addressed-first

  • Does The U.s. Really Have Good Friends?

    States do not have friends. They have allies with similar interest. A friend bears a sacrifice on your behalf.  An ally provides assistance in times of mutual interest. 

    So no.  No country has ‘friends’.  Even asking the question is a naive application of interpersonal relationships to international relations.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-really-have-good-friends

  • What Are Some Things The Us Can Learn From Other Cultures?

    Individualism in law is different from individualism in policy.  Law must of necessity apply to the individual. Policy of necessity must apply to the family.  We have abandoned the family as the central unit of production.  And we have abandoned the family.   And we are paying the consequences of it.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-the-US-can-learn-from-other-cultures

  • How Does A Country Get A Good Balance Between Socialism And Capitalism?

    I’ll back up TJ Claridge’s post and say that you’re misusing the terms.

    I think you mean to say, how much interference in the economy by the government produces a Pareto Optimum? 

    We call this a mixed economy.  That is, a capitalist economy (which is the only economy possible long term), with social democratic redistribution via taxation.   Under social democracy, property is owned by individuals, but proceeds are forcibly taken from those people for redistributive purposes. Social democracy is not socialism, since property is not owned by the state, and production is not organized by the state. (It cannot be, that’s why it isn’t). 

    In practice nearly all governments today practice social democracy.  The difference is only in the level of corruption involved. Even very good people in the world (Hindus) have a tragically corrupt country.

    Greece for example has both high corruption (bureaucratic) and high avoidance (personal).  America has very sophisticated corruption (systemic), very little interpersonal bureaucratic corruption other than systemic corruption, and very little personal avoidance.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-get-a-good-balance-between-socialism-and-capitalism

  • When Did The Us Become Such A Litigious Country?

    THIS IS A GOOD BUT MISUNDERSTOOD QUESTION

    America practices the common law of anglo saxon origin, in which all things are permitted except that which is extant in law.

    This is different from the rest of the world’s model – especially the Napoleonic – in which only that which is in law, is permitted.

    So what you see in Europe is a lot more regulation, and fewer legal disputes, and a lot less risk taking and experimentation. Whereas in America we have more risk taking and experimentation, and more litigation. 

    Frankly, the evidence is that our method is better.

    Where the government and law has fallen down is the laws of banking, credit and interest, in which the consumer is not sufficiently protected from an asymmetry of power, information, and incentives. 

    In my (hopefully) informed opinion, this is the central question we must address (consumer protection from financial predation) not our preference for consequent common law, versus antecedent legislative law.

    Only high trust societies can practice consequent common law.  THis is the anglo world’s greatest asset.  And we should never abandon it thinking that we understand it’s import or lack of.

    It is perhaps the greatest competitive advantage of our people.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-US-become-such-a-litigious-country

  • North America: Why Is The Dominant Racial/ethnic Narrative Between ‘white’ America And ‘black’ America When The State Of ‘native’ America Ought To Be Addressed First?

    There is no ‘ought’ in politics between groups.  Politics consists of: is, can, cannot between groups.  Oughts are an in-group question.  The reason being that while we may sacrifice for our kin (kin selection), we only cooperate with our non-kin (utilitarian).  If non-kin cause us sacrifice, then that is parasitism, not cooperation, and certainly not kin selection.

    The reason for the black white conflict is (a) the south was a very different civilization and the US government was funded by export duties provided by the south.  THe north was supplying manufactured goods to the expanding interior.   When Napoleon sold the Louisiana Purchase, it meant that the southern states with their agrarian biases, would gain allies in the newly created territories, and thereby overpower the northern states in government, causing a southern-run government. 

    Slavery was the ‘moral’ message that this political and economic conflict was couched within.  It was largely, if not purely, a distraction tactic.

    The defeat of the south aside, the major problem was the forcible integration of the races under the premise that we are genetically equal in ability and temperment, and that environment was the only factor (blank slate).

    Without that forcible integration it would not have been a problem.

    However, it turns out that the opposite is true, that between 60-80% of our behavior is genetically determined. That the remainder is not necessairly ‘environmental’ but something that we do not yet fully understand. And that groups (races, classes, tribes) form kinship alliances, and that within these alliances we see unequal distribution of talents – particularly, 1) impulsivity 2) aggression, 3) verbal intelligence, and less meaningfully, 4) Spatial intelligence. 

    So by forced integration we are unable to develop norms, memes, traditions, and habits that suit the individuals in the different groups. 

    These are the reasons for the conflict. No one complains about asians.  We complain about blacks and hispanics on one end, and jews on the other.  And native americans, because they are literally invisible, are irrelevant compared to the other conflicts.

    https://www.quora.com/North-America-Why-is-the-dominant-racial-ethnic-narrative-between-White-America-and-Black-America-when-the-state-of-Native-America-ought-to-be-addressed-first