Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION (good ar

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/myths-about-attending-college-debunked.html#AGAINST THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Christopher,

    This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.

    As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.

    The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).

    The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?

    That is the reform that is required.

    As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.

    This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.

    Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.

    We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.

    We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.

    Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 07:08:00 UTC

  • GENIUS —“The difficulty with pollution of physical commons is identifying the

    GENIUS

    —“The difficulty with pollution of physical commons is identifying the polluter. Non-difficulty is calculating damages. Problem with liars is not identifying the culprit, which is easy, but quantifying damages.”— Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 06:12:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND P

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND PHYSICAL COMMONS.

    The postmoderns (like Chomsky) are liars. Why should we not punish liars for the pollution of the informational commons, just as we punish pollution of the physical commons?

    Safeguard the helpless. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:35:00 UTC

  • HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING. Honestly, truthfu

    HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING.

    Honestly, truthfulness, and truth are three different things.

    Honesty is what you believe prior to criticism, truthfulness is demonstration of scientific warranty having performed thorough criticism, and analytic truth is something we are likely prohibited from knowing, except as tautology. It is extremely difficult to make fallacious arguments if they are stated truthfully.

    People want to rely upon religious argument, moral argument, and rationalist argument, instead of scientific (truthful) speech: because it allows them to lie. Religious argument is an authoritarian mythos – often for the common good, because it allowed us to overcome tribalism – but just as often not. Moral argument without Propertarian criticism is an excellent means of lying because it forces guilt and shaming into the conversation. Rationalism is an exceptional means of lying because it forces verbalism into the argument. Postmodernism is the most masterful lie ever constructed after religion.

    —“But, … are you lying if you think you are telling the truth?”—

    This in itself is a verbalism: imprecise language that permits deceit through obscurity. The correct statement is, “if I fail to warranty by due diligence my statements, I am engaged in an act of willful ignorance.” Most of us engage in willful ignorance in order to use deceit to justify our discounts (parasitism). All language is negotiation, and all moral argument is justification. Truth isn’t kind to our justifications. But truthfulness is as necessary a commons as is property.

    – Humans acquire. We attempt to obtain the greatest benefit, in the shortest time, with the least effort, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

    – Cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition.

    – Parasitism in all its forms is a disincentive to cooperate: murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, fraud by obstruction, free riding, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest, and predation.

    – Parasitism is an unearned discount (theft) on cooperation. Commons are a premium on cooperation.

    – Cooperation, norms, truth telling, and property are costs – the premiums we pay for cooperation.

    – Everything else is theft.

    – Economic velocity and group production, acquisition and consumption are the result of the total suppression of parasitism in all its forms. The greater the suppression of parasitism, the greater the warranty of truth telling, the higher the economic velocity.

    It’s just math really.

    Humans are entirely algorithmically expressible creatures.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:34:00 UTC

  • THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom) —“T

    THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION

    (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)

    —“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner

    Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)

    As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    (Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    (But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    (Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 05:47:00 UTC

  • REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT. The non-aggress

    REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT.

    The non-aggression principle is a fallacious distraction specifically developed in order to permit deceit. True, one must not aggress, but that statement is meaningless without stating what it is we fail to aggress against.

    Under the NAP, as advocated by both Rothbard and Hoppe, and perpetuated by Block, the test of aggression is merely intersubjectively verifiable property. Under this fallacy, they argue that man SHOULD not retaliate, and must not retaliate, or he will be brought to court for his retaliation.

    But this test permits parasitism, and as Block advocates, even blackmail. And man retaliates against blackmail. We cannot explain away that man retaliates against blackmail. It is praxeologically irrational that man not retaliate against blackmail.

    The common law provides a means for preventing retaliation – and in large part that was solution that provided its origin: *to preserve cooperation by providing a means of retaliation, without the necessity of appeal to authority.*

    The test of demand for authority is that we must not aggress against anything that humans will retaliate against. And humans will retaliate against property-en-toto, not merely intersubjectively verifiable property.

    Rothbard attempted to preserve Levantine immorality. He attempted to preserve the opportunity to deceive. He attempted to preserve the ability to profit from unproductive activity. Rothbard attempted to preserve evasion of payment for the commons. Rothbard attempted to prohibit the construction of commons. Yet western high trust – the source of our universal economic advantage, the source of our science and reason, the source of rule by law and jury, is entirely dependent upon our ability to construct normative and material commons by prohibiting all human action that is parasitic, and even that which is unproductive.

    Conversely, without truth-telling, the common law, the jury, the normative commons, and total prohibition on the imposition of costs, wherein all possible disputes can be resolved under the law, without an authority, then, in such a condition, demand for the authoritarian state increases with the degree of those impositions that are not satisfied by law. As such, Levantine morality (immorality), de facto, praxeologically, without exception, increases demand for the state. Ergo, NAP is a source of demand for the state, not one of elimination of it. And we see this wherever Levantine low trust ethics are practiced.

    When you use the term NAP, you are invoking primitive, Levantine immorality. Instead, if you wish liberty, we must not impose costs upon one another. And our law must prohibit the imposition of costs upon one another. This eliminates demand for the state.

    Only by eliminating demand for the state, can we diminish it.

    The fallacious counter argument is that competition itself imposes costs upon others. But it imposes opportunity costs only. And without those opportunity costs, we cannot construct the voluntary organization of production that we unfortunately refer to as “capitalism”.

    So abandon the fallacy of non-aggression as one of the formal, logical, and moral reasons for the failure of libertarianism since Rothbard seized control of it from westerners, by the same means employed by the Marxists, socialists, postmodernists and neocons: mere saturation of the subject with repeated fallacies: loading, framing and overloading.

    Speak the truth. Impose no cost. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil. To do otherwise is to attempt to use deceit to purchase liberty at a discount, rather than to construct it by bearing the cost of doing so.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 12:47:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES The technique we

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES

    The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.

    Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:

    (1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),

    (2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and

    (3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).

    Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.

    The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.

    In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.

    So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.

    That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.

    Those are the facts.

    Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?

    Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC

  • “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 04:58:00 UTC

  • DENIALISM HAS NO FUTURE IN ECONOMICS (useful arguments)(libertarians should read

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/04/u-s-taxes-low-compared-with-other-developed-economiesMORAL DENIALISM HAS NO FUTURE IN ECONOMICS

    (useful arguments)(libertarians should read) (conservatives should read)(reactionaries should read)

    BARRY:

    We have high tax efficiency (people pay), high productivity (we work more), higher employment (more of us work, and work longer), vastly more entrepreneurship, risk taking, and innovation, and much, much higher consumption. (We also have counter-productive higher corporate taxation.)

    The left’s argument is that under a democratic government, we can tax – without equilibrating effect – a divided, heterogeneous American domestic empire, via the same means as we do small, homogenous European extended-tribal nation-states that are not responsible for policing the world system of finance and trade, nor of their seas, borders, or neighbors. It is one thing to redistribute to kin, another to redistribute to free riders, and another to redistribute to one’s kin’s competitors

    So what you mean, if stated truthfully (meaning: fully informed), is that we should exchange efficiency, productivity, employment and consumption for the production of additional redistributive commons of unequal desirability, against the wishes of the producers. Yet this would only increase the divisiveness of the heterogeneous population.

    It is true that through immigration, the left, with the support of the academy, has perpetuated a conquest of the European people’s in exchange for income and status signals. And that via this conquest, that it will shortly be possible to engage in further appropriation, and greater dependence upon redistribution, providing fewer incentives to pay, to produce, to employ and to consume.

    But it is not yet certain whether the heterogeneous polity will come to dissolution over it or not. And as we have seen from the success of the austerity movement, people will pay high personal costs to punish free riders. Yet, ignoring human instinctual morality that is necessary for the evolution of cooperation, mainstream economists – and particularly left-leaning mainstream economists – assume that democratic electorates will tolerate inter-cultural redistribution from high productivity to low productivity peoples without invoking moral demand for altruistic punishment.

    Austerity is a normal, irrepressible result of the instinctual and evolutionarily necessary requirement to suppress free-riding.

    It is anti-empirical (unscientific) to suggest (and possibly genocidal to suggest) that we should not, or under democracy that man will not, engage in the punishment of free riders.

    Just how it is. That’s the science. Or has economics evolved from anti-operational, into a full-fledged anti-empirical, anti-rational religion?

    Your opponents succeed politically because of moral intuition, even if they lack a rhetorical language to articulate those intuitions. Some of us are working on giving them that language. We just hope it is not too late to end yet another pseudoscience as we are systematically ending the rest of the progressives pseudosciences.

    Moral denialism has no future.

    Cheers 🙂

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 04:15:00 UTC

  • hates white people. Just like Paul Krugman. between them and the NYT

    http://conservativetribune.com/video-surfaces-obama-1995/Obama hates white people. Just like Paul Krugman. between them and the NYT…

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 07:59:00 UTC