Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Has The Quality Of Content And Interactions On Quora Gone Down Drastically In The Recent Past?

    It appears that way.  Yes. It is declining.

    What is the difference between Quora and Yahoo forums or internet Newsgroups if there is no way to insulate questions and answers that meet scientific standards of argument from segmental and moral opinions and surveys?

    None.

    For example. A few commenters have referred to physics as a good topic to follow.  However physics has a high barrier to entry and a low sympathetic access and low normative content. There is nothing special about quora – its the nature of the topic. All discussions if physics are of this nature. 

    My specialty is political theory.  Political theory is extremely difficult to insulate from cognitive bias and logical error. This is because not only is it difficult to test, but political ideology unlike the the discipline of political economy, has evolved, largely by design, to insulate ideological statements from rational and empirical criticism, by adopting the rhetorical techniques of the monotheistic religions.

    And so separating ideological statements from institutional statements is nearly impossible. Ideology works precisely because it is non rational and it amplifies our biases and preferences. Ideology is populist, and political economy is organizational theory.

    Statements in political theory can correspond with the facts or fail to, but those facts are open to subjective interpretation.

    Means and ends produce empirical truths not subjective preferences, but means and ends are chosen by subjective preference. 

    Humans say and desire many things, but  humans demonstrate, and we can empirically measure, their actual behavior – and there is very little relationship between the two.

    Morals and norms are habits not truths, that largely reflect structures of production and reproduction – and some are necessary for certain outcomes and some are arbitrary, and some produce ‘bad’ outcomes over time. But humans almost universally defend habits as true goods.

    The relationship between logic math science and philosophy has been based on only one or two specious mathematical arguments using irrational sets.  The profound implication of Einstein has been mysticized by Cantor, and given permission to philosophers to undermine the institution of reason.

    Rights for example must be contractual. Some may be necessary, and some preferable, and some luxuries. But they cannot be intrinsic.

    Socialism and communism arent possible because economic calculation isnt possible nor can people possess incentives to act without the information in prices made possible by money, property and contract. Its not a choice.

    These are just some of the scientific criteria that bounds the discipline.  Yet almost all questions are some variation of “chocolate ice cream tastes good”. They are not rational.


    So, likewise, any CURRENT survey of Quora users will of necessity produce nothing more than the confirmation bias of users making self judgements. But empirically speaking, unless there is some way to filter ratio-scientific questions and comments from sentimental-moral-normative questions and comments, then it is an unstoppable race to the bottom for Quora.  Just like amy other commodity, value is the result of scarcity and quora is making the mistake of a mass market consumer companies : destroying the brand by overextending its market, thus degrading booth supply and demand.

    That my argument is a description of a socioeconomic law, is probably lost on the audience.

    But unless quora creates a barrier to entry, or a veil between each category of argument from the sentimental to the ratio empirical, then surveys will continue to present a positive opinion but quality of the product will in fact decline until a precipitous decline.

    This is deterministic.

    It cant change.





    https://www.quora.com/Has-the-quality-of-content-and-interactions-on-Quora-gone-down-drastically-in-the-recent-past

  • Why Is Income Redistribution Such A Problem For Republicans? Provide Data And Any Other Quantitative Evidence.

    INCOME REDISTRIBUTION IS A PROBLEM FOR EVERYONE

    Otherwise we wouldn’t have a 1% movement.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-income-redistribution-such-a-problem-for-Republicans-Provide-data-and-any-other-quantitative-evidence

  • Where Do Atheists Believe The Bible Came From?

    GOOD ANSWERS HERE, SO I’LL ADD ONE POINT OTHERS SEEM TO MISS

    It is a collection of children’s and campfire stories from an era of profound poverty, ignorance and violence, and most of the new testament was an attempt to rebel against the roman empire the same way that the primitive world attempted to adopt the scripture of Marxism, and the same way that the modern world is attempting to adopt the scripture of Postmodernism as a reaction to science and economics.

    The fascinating part of all this is that the ten commandments are a pretty good system of property rights upon which you can start to build a complex civilization on individual rather than familial or tribal property rights – which were necessary for land holders, but not for migratory peoples.

    This difference in jewish and christian ethics persist today: the land holders and the traders still have different ethical principles and this manifests itself in our voting for different parties with different moral codes.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-do-atheists-believe-the-Bible-came-from

  • What Is Capitalism’s Fundamental Flaw?

    CAPITALISM DOESN’T HAVE A FLAW – IT’S INSUFFICIENT

    It’s a necessary tool for cooperating in a vast division of labor. Humans are not all that meritocratic by nature, and don’t like lotteries.  And capitalism is a necessary, meritocratic, lottery.

    It isn’t just. It isn’t fair. It’s just necessary.  So how do you take what’s necessary and then on top of it, make it somewhat just and somewhat fair?   That’s what we’re always trying to do. It’s just that government as we currently know it, isn’t a very good way of doing that.

    There is a very big difference between fair and desirable.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalisms-fundamental-flaw

  • Why Is Income Redistribution Such A Problem For Republicans? Provide Data And Any Other Quantitative Evidence.

    INCOME REDISTRIBUTION IS A PROBLEM FOR EVERYONE

    Otherwise we wouldn’t have a 1% movement.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-income-redistribution-such-a-problem-for-Republicans-Provide-data-and-any-other-quantitative-evidence

  • Where Do Atheists Believe The Bible Came From?

    GOOD ANSWERS HERE, SO I’LL ADD ONE POINT OTHERS SEEM TO MISS

    It is a collection of children’s and campfire stories from an era of profound poverty, ignorance and violence, and most of the new testament was an attempt to rebel against the roman empire the same way that the primitive world attempted to adopt the scripture of Marxism, and the same way that the modern world is attempting to adopt the scripture of Postmodernism as a reaction to science and economics.

    The fascinating part of all this is that the ten commandments are a pretty good system of property rights upon which you can start to build a complex civilization on individual rather than familial or tribal property rights – which were necessary for land holders, but not for migratory peoples.

    This difference in jewish and christian ethics persist today: the land holders and the traders still have different ethical principles and this manifests itself in our voting for different parties with different moral codes.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-do-atheists-believe-the-Bible-came-from

  • What Is Capitalism’s Fundamental Flaw?

    CAPITALISM DOESN’T HAVE A FLAW – IT’S INSUFFICIENT

    It’s a necessary tool for cooperating in a vast division of labor. Humans are not all that meritocratic by nature, and don’t like lotteries.  And capitalism is a necessary, meritocratic, lottery.

    It isn’t just. It isn’t fair. It’s just necessary.  So how do you take what’s necessary and then on top of it, make it somewhat just and somewhat fair?   That’s what we’re always trying to do. It’s just that government as we currently know it, isn’t a very good way of doing that.

    There is a very big difference between fair and desirable.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalisms-fundamental-flaw

  • How Does Coca-cola Pass National Food Agencies If They Don’t Reveal The Ingredients?

    The ingredients are actually known, and available on the internet.  Water, sugar, salt, and eight or nine oils in very small quantities.  The countries that ban it do it to reject cultural influence, not because of ingredients.  In Coca Cola, the caffeine (unless something has changed) still comes from the Kola nut itself.  And the government has given exclusive rights to the company to use extracts of coca leaves – which is why no one can replicate the flavor.  The rest of the flavors are natural.  And there is a whole lot of science that the company can call on if someone wants to criticize it for some reason.  It’s fine as you don’t live on it. It’s better if you get the stuff made with sugar rather than corn syrup. 🙂  Much better. 🙂

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-Coca-Cola-pass-national-food-agencies-if-they-dont-reveal-the-ingredients

  • A Defense and Criticism of The Class Philosophy We Call ‘Libertarianism’

    [A]ll philosophy is class philosophy. All philosophies give precedence to one class or another. Libertarianism is a class philosophy as well. A CLASS PHILOSOPHY

      AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that states that:

        A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Libertarianism as a political philosophy that states that:

          BRANCHES OF LIBERTARIANISM

          • CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
          • MINIMAL STATE LIBERTARIANISM
          • ANARCHISM
          • ROTHBARDIAN

          LIBERTARIANISM IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY – NOT SOCIAL GOODSLibertarianism is not an argument against ‘government’. It is an argument against monopoly and bureaucracy which hinder individual innovation and competition, and the creating of ‘differences’ (inequalities) which we then seek to eliminate. Libertarianism is not a prohibition on government. IT IS A PROHIBITION ON A MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY that we call the STATE, that is able to issue COMMANDS under the guise of LAWS, because it maintains a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce those commands, because that state is isolated from competition, and as such, can pursue the interests of the bureaucracy, or become a tool of special interests that likewise desire monopoly privileges, at the expense of the citizenry. THE POWER OF LIKE-MINDED COMMUNITIES EVEN IF THEIR POWER IS BASED SOLEY ON THEIR VALUE AS CONSUMERS Libertarianism allows us to form our own communities with our own rules and norms, in a balance of power between communities with similar interests. These communities will then compete with one another for population, talent, and services. And people can choose which community to belong to. In this model there is no ‘state’. There are just collections of people who form contractual alliances. Just as we make voluntary commercial organizations, we can make voluntary civic organizations. Consumers are very important. Without consumers and credit it is impossible for commercial organizations to make money, and without the ability to make money there is no ability for people to organize into groups. The lower classes are consumers, and quite honestly, produce very little of value other than their consumption. Lower classes in the libertarian model will either exchange adoption to norms for redistributions in wealthy communities, or organize into their own organizations and charge fees for access to their consumers, which can then be redistributed, thereby minimizing profit. COOPERATING ON MEANS EVEN IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT ENDS: BY EXCHANGES IN THE MARKET AND IN GOVERNMENT The market for competition lets us compete toward different ends and preferences, even if we cooperate on means of achieving them. Monopoly government forces us to compete in government in a win-lose battle for control of the monopoly bureaucracy. Humans have been cooperating in the market on means, despite having disparate ends, for millennia There is no reason that we cannot take this insight as far as possible. MORALITY AND COMPETITION The market allows us to compete upon ends while cooperating upon means. However, competition is morally objectionable to human beings inside the family group, village or tribe. We license and encourage competition, because it produces positive results: a virtuous cycle. We tolerate only one form of immorality: competition. Every other form of involuntary transfer: violence, theft, fraud, omission, externalization, free riding, rent seeking and privatization, systemic corruption, systemic procedural involuntary transfer and warfare – we have constrained or outlawed. We can, in the market, use boycott to deprive organizations of wealth. But it is not always a strong lever. We can use the courts to protect us from violence, theft, fraud and omission if we do not surrender our right to sue. We can use government to protect us from unnecessary competition, free riding and privatization of the commons. when we invest in commons. We can use the state ‘bank’ as an insurer of last resort. We can use multiple houses of government, where we have them, to negotiate exchanges between the classes where market exchange is not possible or creation of commons is not possible, because of the asymmetry of reward of investment in various commons’. But we can only use market and government to cooperate on means of achieving disparate ends, if government is not open to corruttion. And government is open to corruption if it can make laws rather than conttracts. Only the courts can find or discover laws. The government if not corrupt, can only negotiate contracts impossible to negotiate in the market. This emphasis on contracts relies upon the morality of exchange, rather than the immorality of majority rule, or arbitrary command in pursuit of some artificial common ‘good’. ANY OTHER SOLUTION MEANS YOU’RE A THIEF That is, unless your desire is to STEAL rather than EXCHANGE. And you are most likely to want to STEAL rather than exchange if government provides a systematic means of stealing from others. And that’s what government does. It provides a systematic means of stealing. THe common law and property rights provide a systematic means of exchanging instead of stealing.

          ON THE NECESSARY, ADVANTAGEOUS, AND LUXURY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT

          A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are:

            These are the minimum properties of a government. B) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:

              These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:

                These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and crated both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

                RESERVATIONS ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

                THE ANCIENT SOURCE OF LIBERTY AND THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTARIANISM White males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition. The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism. And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue). For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat. With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work. With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service. With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce. Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.) Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data. As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth. That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it. This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access. Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society. And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale. RESERVATIONS ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

                • 1) DISCOUNT-DRIVEN PACIFISM.
                • 2) LIBERTY IS A DESIRE OF THE MINORITY.
                • 3) LACK OF ORGANIZATION.

              • Why Is Communism Considered Evil By Some People?

                GREAT QUESTION. ILL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE

                Because Karl Marx made a catastrophic error in basing his system of thought on the Labor Theory of Value, and amplified that with a complete failure to understand the necessity of prices and incentives as information systems – a combination that invalidated everything else he concluded from that point onward.

                This catastrophe would not have mattered, and would have made him little more than the subject of economic ridicule that he is today, except that he wrote ideological works including the Communist Manifesto, that were prescriptions for rebellion, and that formed both the basis of a new pseudo-religion masquerading as a political system. Second this pseudo-religion formed the a model with which the east could react to, and compete with, the disruptive social and political effects of anglo consumer Capitalism under Democracy.

                The east needed an ideological alternative to ‘jump ahead’ of the west. In their societies, democracy could not function because it requires that familial trust and freedom from coercion be extended to all members of society, which was impossible due to eastern cultural retention of family and tribal priorities where trust and freedom from coercion is extended only to family and tribe – and coercion and corruption were pervasive elsewhere.

                While Marx is sometimes given a pass, because his ideas were abused by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong (毛泽东), and the Khmer Rouge, which resulted in the murder 100M people, the fact remains that Communism isn’t possible because human cooperation is impossible in a division of knowledge and labor without the combination of money, prices, accounting, contracts, and the constant desire of people to identify new opportunities and niches to fill in response to changing demand and shocks.

                The reason that the west demonized Marxism was because it was a threat to consumer capitalist society: it was used to militarize countries, it was used as an ideological tool to foment rebellion around the world, and it resulted in more deaths than anything in Human History other than perhaps even the Black Death. So realistically, it deserves to be demonized.


                WHAT WORKS IF MARX DOESN’T?

                Social democracy, which is ordinary english classical liberalism with the addition of Keynesian Economic policy, does not include the abolishment of private property, prices, and incentives, instead keeps all of those institutions, while ‘siphoning off as much profit from individuals as it can without killing the cow that feeds it.’

                This seems to be working quite well, except that people do not work hard or long enough, and have now spent both the money that they would have saved during their lifetimes, and the money that the future generations would have consumed. This is a problem of building a Ponzi Scheme dependent on the same perpetual Economic Growth that we saw during Industrialization, but it is not one of the impossibility that Marx fantasized about.

                WHY IS CONSUMER CAPITALISM NECESSARY?

                It is very easy to be China or India and import existing western technology. But when easy opportunities (as we see is happening in China) are fully exploited, the country must turn to domestic consumption, and to domestic innovation. So Totalitarianism is effective in China at creating literacy, and effective in ‘investment’ in infrastructure. The question remains how effective or burdensome that bureaucracy will be when the limits of totalitarian direction are reached, and the society must run entirely on domestic consumption.

                THE VALUE OF TOTALITARIANISM AT EARLY STAGES

                Chinese totalitarianism is useful at this stage because the army can be counted on to enforce policy if the people rebel, but India can’t do the same. While both China and India are empires, India has more systematic corruption and insufficient centralization of power to forcibly implement policy as does China.

                It is possible that China can convert to an innovation country at some point. But it remains a desperately poor country. But the entire issue is that innovation and constant adaptation become the source of prosperity once easily obtained opportunities have been fully exploited.

                CHINA IS A CORPORATIST NOT A COMMUNIST STATE

                (Which would be painfully ironic if not for 100M dead people.)

                There is nothing communist about China at all. China is operated by Confucian rules: as a large, extended-family corporation. And the modern communist party is not communist, or a party, it is a corporation and runs china as a corporation. It satisfies consumers, and it must satisfy consumers because internal frictions would disrupt it if it didn’t.

                In this sense, there is nothing communist about china any longer other than the symbolism, and the disproportionate power of the People’s Liberation Army that still lives by doctrine.

                China is an example of Corporatism. Corporatism works. Because it’s meritocratic.

                Russia is trying to move to corporatism, but culturally is too much of a bridge civilization between east and west, and will have to retain some semblance of democratic rule even if the bureaucracy will remain corporatist.

                The west is having problems with its fantasy of universalism, and social democracy which were invented in a period of temporary economic superiority that no longer exists in a globalized labor force. It is not any more sustainable than is the US military control of trade and petrodollars.

                But that’s a different topic for another time.

                https://www.quora.com/Why-is-communism-considered-evil-by-some-people