Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Those Who Fear Truth – (Are Taking Discounts)

    [T]he truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES

  • The ‘Aggressiveness’ of NRx Advocates?

    [T]he NRx movement evolved as a criticism of political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying in politics.

    The current alt-right has evolved into the practice of activism against political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying. In their ethos you are practicing political correctness (lying) not science or truth. If we all practice pragmatism we are merely all lying.

    So the question is, how, given the truth, should we construct the commons (social order and the law that enforces it)?

    It is not pleasant to look in the mirror and admit that one is just practicing political correctness (lying) for the purpose of self interest. And that for all intents and purposes one is no different from a neocon or socialist or any other niche that lies for the purpose of self-signal production.

    Truth is a mirror. Use it.  Be aggressive about it.

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

  • The ‘Aggressiveness’ of NRx Advocates?

    [T]he NRx movement evolved as a criticism of political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying in politics.

    The current alt-right has evolved into the practice of activism against political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying. In their ethos you are practicing political correctness (lying) not science or truth. If we all practice pragmatism we are merely all lying.

    So the question is, how, given the truth, should we construct the commons (social order and the law that enforces it)?

    It is not pleasant to look in the mirror and admit that one is just practicing political correctness (lying) for the purpose of self interest. And that for all intents and purposes one is no different from a neocon or socialist or any other niche that lies for the purpose of self-signal production.

    Truth is a mirror. Use it.  Be aggressive about it.

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

  • The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism

    —“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior.  Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism

    —“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior.  Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Thinking. Trust, and Russia.

    [D]espite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy. Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation*. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core. So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol). The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard. Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians. The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force). Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time. This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy. The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous. Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners. I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times. I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.

  • Thinking. Trust, and Russia.

    [D]espite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy. Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation*. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core. So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol). The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard. Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians. The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force). Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time. This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy. The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous. Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners. I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times. I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.

  • Lies, Damned Lies, and Opportunity Costs

    [A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.

  • Lies, Damned Lies, and Opportunity Costs

    [A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.

  • Putin. Only a Russian will prefer an obviously outright lie to more effective st

    Putin. Only a Russian will prefer an obviously outright lie to more effective statement of truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-20 14:17:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/634368681196290048