Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Names (truth) vs Analogies (deceits)

    [A] sequence of operations consists of names. I can name that sequence of operations. An experience or an observation or an imagination of cause and effect is an analogy. Names may or may not convey meaning. THey may or may not convey loadings which we, as moral creatures, feel are terribly important. But operations are names and experiences are analogies. I have a pretty low opinion of meaning. It’s a vehicle for comprehension yes.

    But that comprehension is by definition loaded. And loading and framing are means of deceit.

    Source: (1) Curt Doolittle

  • End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    [W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….

  • End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    [W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….

  • PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS (run with this meme) Paul; It’s not

    PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS

    (run with this meme)

    Paul; It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading and 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 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.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 06:08:00 UTC

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Mainstream Econ is the Study of Deception

    [M]ainstream Economics is not a practiced as a science of cooperation man but as a science of the deception of man. Not how to improve cooperation by reducing transaction costs and uncertainties but how to force consumption for the purpose of increasing employment. Of course the simplest method of  achieving the same result is to stop distorting the labor economy and directly redistribute liquidity to consumers such that employment makes less of an impact on the unemployed. That would also have the side effect of impoverishing the financial sector. Which is a good thing.

  • Mainstream Econ is the Study of Deception

    [M]ainstream Economics is not a practiced as a science of cooperation man but as a science of the deception of man. Not how to improve cooperation by reducing transaction costs and uncertainties but how to force consumption for the purpose of increasing employment. Of course the simplest method of  achieving the same result is to stop distorting the labor economy and directly redistribute liquidity to consumers such that employment makes less of an impact on the unemployed. That would also have the side effect of impoverishing the financial sector. Which is a good thing.

  • WE AREN’T DEBATING: I”M PROSECUTING YOU. —We aren’t debating, or discoursing.

    WE AREN’T DEBATING: I”M PROSECUTING YOU.

    —We aren’t debating, or discoursing. We can’t debate or discourse until we’re not lying. Until we’re not lying we’re in conflict. So I am prosecuting your ideas to ensure you’re not lying. Only after you’re no longer lying, can we say that we are negotiating an exchange. But if we start from your premise of lying, and your premise of falsehoods, an honest exchange is not possible. If an honest exchange is not possible, the violence is preferable. So I am not trying to discover the truth. They truth is unknowable. I am not trying to discover an optimum solution, because it may be unknowable. I am only trying to ensure that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. At that point, what remains is but truth. And all truthful exchanges of mutual benefit are ‘true’ and ‘optimum’. And all lies and thefts by lie are neither true nor optimum. So you start from the position of maximizing benefit. I start from the position of needing a reason not to kill you for lying.—

    (PS: If you combine ethical propertarianism with personal stoicism you are probably the very best thinker that man can be.)

    Eli Harman Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 03:58:00 UTC

  • THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS. —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someon

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    Well, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense.

    (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon.

    (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable.

    (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof

    (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits.

    (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements).

    (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content.

    (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content.

    We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever.

    We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us.

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth.

    Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining.

    Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion.

    Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) but we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet, because we do not know them – although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can.

    Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on.

    I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on.

    I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on.

    The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history.

    The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms. through the definitions of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life.

    There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty.

    Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others.

    Now you can go run to hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them.

    What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit.

    Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over.

    Welcome to the new age.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-18 15:21:00 UTC