Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (

    YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (CONVINCE THEM OF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD PREFER, RATHER THAN STATE THAT WHICH WE PREFER, AND THEY MUST GRANT US OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.)

    (from elsewhere)

    Yeah… I agree that you can’t persuade people. but that’s mostly because of the investment cost: the fact that the intuitionistic searching we do (that which we cannot observe) determines the subjective probability (possibility) of answers. And I suspect some of our learning isn’t open to re-weighting (what we call metaphysical value judgements), because all consequential development is dependent upon those pre-rational, pre-cognitive, unobservable, weights.

    I am never going to convince a person highly invested in ‘meaning’, highly invested in ‘rationalism’, or highly invested in ‘postmodern construction of social reality’ any more than I am going to convince their precursors: metaphorical and historical analogists, or mystics and magians, or even those few cultures who never developed any post-experiential thought such as mythic history (and yes they do exist.)

    Furthermore, I’m not going to convince someone like Wilber (Nor do I feel the need to ) to adopt the level of scientific argument I’m working on, because his inquiry is into the personal and experiential, just as mine is in the political and INEXPERIENTIAL. I want to prevent people from doing harm (law). People like him want to help people find happiness(religion).

    I cannot convince the feminine (submissive) bias in favor of buddhism, to switch to the male (dominance) bias in favor of stoicism, even though both are only concerned with mindfulness, and happiness achieved through mindfulness. The difference between them being buddhist discipline in escapism, and stoic action in reality. Any more than I can convince a hedonist to prefer either, or scientific ascetic like myself to do either.

    We cannot convince others.

    And the only reason we even think of it, is so that we can form alliances in order to obtain power by means of gossip and ostracism, or authority, law and violence, or to encourage consumption for the purpose of profiting from it.

    We don’t need ideals and monopolies. We are not only unequal, but very different – different casts, that perform different functions in the inter-temporal division of reproductive labor.

    There is only one ‘law’ that must be observed for all of us to have the possibility of happiness, and that law is the prohibition on parasitism, without which violence is our only rational recourse.

    And propertarianism is the only logical means of providing decideablity between individuals in a heterogeneous polity of heterogeneous interests, working in our self interest, through nothing but signals and information, in a voluntary order of cooperation toward one end: the persistence of our genes, and the persistence of man.

    A monopolist of preferences, whether socialist conservative, or libertarian, is a tyrant. It doesn’t matter which point in the spectrum you advocate. Monopoly in political systems requires the elimination of choice.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 06:25:00 UTC

  • Awesome. We are all delusional

    Awesome. We are all delusional.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-28 02:33:00 UTC

  • The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumst

    The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumstances, and men do not. Men are hard-coded by about 15 or 16, even if we don’t mentally complete our maturity until 22, 32, or even 40. We just decrease in energy level from that point onward. Women are not damaged in utero, so they start out with an advantage, and mature by their early teens – at the expense of a more integrated mind, and less ability to escape its multitude of impulses. But to find happiness in acceptance in a cooperative group, women will adapt to all sorts of environments. Which is why they can survive in the workplace so much longer under perishable patterns of production (switching jobs). I am sure to women it frustrates them that the higher regions are so predominantly, if not exclusively male. But that is because we are specialists. Everything we do goes toward narrower set of ends. That is not the case for women. But conversely, for two-thirds of men, modernity is painful because it changes, and they cannot adapt as do women. Civilization is much better for women than for men. Most of us are happy with pickup trucks, guns, some food, some guys to fight, and some friends to fight other guys with. That is our natural state. 🙂 And we have to be trained out of it by the use of substitutes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 06:28:00 UTC

  • RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS On my way to work this morning my husband Bart called me

    RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS

    On my way to work this morning my husband Bart called me to tell me I had left my breakfast smoothie on the counter.

    Rushing, I was mad now, and would eventually be hungry…so I stopped at the Dunkin’ Donuts near school to grab a bite to eat instead. And although I sat in the drive-up line, fuming to myself, when I pulled up to the window to pay, the cashier said, “Um, the person ahead of you paid your bill.”

    Mood adjusted.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 08:16:00 UTC

  • TO CAUSE TWO PEOPLE TO FALL IN LOVE Great study. Great Questions. Easily replica

    http://www.stafforini.com/txt/Aron%20et%20al%20-%20The%20experimental%20generation%20of%20interpersonal%20closeness.pdfHOW TO CAUSE TWO PEOPLE TO FALL IN LOVE

    Great study. Great Questions. Easily replicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 08:11:00 UTC

  • A horse will freak and bolt over a candy bar wrapper tumbling on the breeze fift

    A horse will freak and bolt over a candy bar wrapper tumbling on the breeze fifty yards away. But you can run over a whole herd of them with a train and they won’t move. Same for cows and camels. Evolutionary wiring.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-10 16:36:00 UTC

  • You can’t use a philosophical model unless you can reduce it to a moral intuitio

    You can’t use a philosophical model unless you can reduce it to a moral intuition. It’s too expensive to rely upon reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-09 06:40:00 UTC

  • Those who do not understand the reasons for their success will fail to repeat it

    Those who do not understand the reasons for their success will fail to repeat it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:52:00 UTC

  • RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION We know why incentivized leftists do what they

    RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION

    We know why incentivized leftists do what they do now, and mises was wrong. Its status seeking, not guilt. Guilt is interestingly more powerful in the jewish construct of man where status seeking is more powerful in western heroic vision. We know that most leftists are genetically determined, and environmentally reinforced. So if one is to deduce human behavior and incentive, one must correction understand the hierarchy of those incentives and he was incorrect.

    My goal isn’t to discredit Mises, it is to eliminate postmodern deceptions and pseudosciences. And to rescue Austrian economics from the damage done, so that I can reintroduce morality into empirical economics, requires that I demonstrate how and why mises was mistaken. The problem is that mises, like many cosmopolitans, argued pseudoscientifically. I understand now why this was done by both germans and jews of their era. But the net is that it is pseudoscientific and must be corrected or be thrown out along with every other pseudoscience. To correct it requires only that correction I have made: mises was mistaken. He had discovered operationalism (intuitionism) in economics as a test of existential possibility. But it is beyond question at this point that economic phenomenon are not deducible from has nonsense ‘axiom’. Instead, we can create theories however we wish, we can test them through criticism. Once we possess them we can create models from them. Models help us investigate the possibility of new theories. However, we must criticize (falsify) our theories to determine if they survive scrutiny. Included in these tests are internal consistency (logic) external correspondence (empirical testing), operational definition (existential possibility), parsimony (falsifiication), as well as morality (voluntary exchange/transfer). These tests warranty that we relay what exists not what we imagine, by laundering imaginary content from our imagined theories, leaving the most accurate description of phenomenon that we can measure.

    From this perspective, Misies is correct: he sought to practice moral economics (exchanges), and the mainstream adopted immoral economics(deceptions). Unfortunately he tried, as germans and jews are want to do, to conflate axiomatic truth and morality, instead of theoretical truth being necessary for the conduct of moral economics.

    This is, I think, how we rescue mises from his ostracized position in history, and restore morality to economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 03:30:00 UTC

  • A THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM AND MORALITY If em

    A THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM AND MORALITY

    If empiricists are correct, and that all memories are the product of observations (both internal and external), and that intuition serves as a search engine(which cognitive scientists seem to agree at present), and imagination a hypothetical engine(again a search engine), then all mental content originates with reality, all knowledge as theory, and the function of thinking, reasoning, and science are to criticize imaginary intuitions, hypotheses to see if they can take the standing of theories (which is analogous to belief), and law (which is analogous to norm, ritual, or sacred tenet).

    The difference between justificationary and critical points of view buried unconsciously in our language, is that feeling, belief, knowledge and truth describe a justificationary epistemology, and intuition, hypothesis, theory and law describe a critical epistemology.

    I would add that I believe (hypothesize) justificationary epistemology is necessary in highly interdependent small polities where most reproduction and production functions as a commons in which all members are shareholders; and therefore the use of most property, is as common property, and so even normative rules (the normative commons) must be justified to others. Whereas under an advanced economy, we are individual actors, and need not justify to others how we make use of resources – only that we do no harm to them. Under both Justification and Criticism we must warranty our words and deeds. Just as we do in all of life.

    This is probably the correct interpretation of why we evolved from systems of beliefs (justifications within a commons) to systems of theories (criticisms under individual property rights) – we must claim knowledge is ethically and morally obtained and practiced. But what constitutes moral action changes as property is increasingly privatized. We move from needing permission to use property, to not. But in the process, we increasingly privatize responsibility for our actions as well.

    It appears that all justification and criticism are merely the conditions of warranty under different structures of property. And that we have increasingly applied our cooperative methodology to those areas of the world where cooperation is no longer involved.

    In other words, it was necessary to privatize property to gain the normative permission to seek the truth. Having privatized it, we have now obtained a condition where we see that the only truth possible is critical. And having abandoned morality from the pursuit of truth, it appears I am unconsciously, unknowingly, and unwittingly, reinserting it into the search for truth as a constraint upon the externalities produced by our search, in an effort to constrain people who would take advantage of the justificationary system for criminal, unethical, and immoral purposes to which it has been put for the past century and a half.

    More to come as I drill into this further.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 03:29:00 UTC