Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY (From a posting I made els

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    (From a posting I made elsewhere)

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times. Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth.

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will refrain from self benefit, at a cost to others through weak argument.

    1. The Problem Of Antiquated Language.

    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property. Because our morals are, universally, statements about property – when property is defined in its natural rather than legal sense. When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity cause by the imprecision of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans. Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception. Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property. And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    2. Morality.

    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally, a normative portfolio of prohibitions on stealing from the commons. Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’. Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons. Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely. However, intellectual honesty requires that we accomodate for these moral differences. Most public

    3. Externalities

    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns. In economics we know much less than economists suggest with their arguments. In part, that’s because of the scientistic error, or the error of positivism: We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way through the world economy – and nothing else. Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted by monetary policy, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These impacts are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. And because these matters are complicated, and impossible to prove mathematically, then even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference for one set of externalities with a truth about economic statements.

    4. So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of more than just avoiding PERSONAL incentives, but moral and political externalities. And as such, an intellectually honest statement must include the following avoidances.

    a) your ignorance vs knowledge

    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning

    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others

    d) your preferences for moral biases.

    e) your preferences for externalities

    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech

    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech. As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-15 07:41:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO ETHICS : THE WALL AND THE OCEAN We libertarians must realize

    ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO ETHICS : THE WALL AND THE OCEAN

    We libertarians must realize the numerous logical errors in the ideological arguments that we use to support our ethics, if we are to include enough of the classical liberals with their aristocratic egalitarian ethics into our movement that we may represent anything more than an irrelevant minority.

    The most common error in libertarian thought is the ghetto ethics of Rothbard. Rothbard could not solve the problem of institutions. So he invented contrivances (and weak ones) to give the appearance of legitimacy to his ethical system. Hoppe succeeded where Rothbard failed. But Rothbard’s arguments persist.

    a) Rothbard’s Ghetto Ethics work only because where there is a ghetto within an existing political system, and no means by which members of the ghetto can replace the exterior political order. It’s all well and good to advocate ghetto ethics in the ghetto. It’s not good, or even rational, to suggest that those ethics could persist without the political exterior to the ghetto. The ghetto is anarchic. Sure. But it’s anarchic because the exterior power will not let a formal monopoly of property rights develop in the ghetto, and the anarch of the ghetto is perceived as a form of punishment for its inhabitants.

    b) Rothbard’s Crusoe Ethics are an example of ghetto ethics. Crusoe ethics sound “all sweet and libertarian” – until you realize that the ocean that surrounds the island provides the violence that separates the island from other humans: instead of the ghetto wall, we have the ocean deeps.

    The only rational model for political systems, that isn’t bent on such a logically faulty contrivance, is quite the opposite: that we are all standing on a continent shared with many other tribes, where each tribe uses slightly different measures of communal and private property. And you, alone, in your tribe, figure out that if you can institute private property, that your tribe will out-compete every other tribe. The question is, how do you create the institution of private property?

    That answer is quite telling: you buy it in a voluntary exchange. That is the only answer that is consistent with the non aggression principle. If you cannot buy it, then you must use violence to implement it. And you must, of certainty, use violence to protect it once you’ve instituted it.

    c) For human beings, instinctively, all property is communal, and privatization is the source of scarcity. It turns out that instinct is wrong, because it prevents the division of knowledge and labor. But we still ‘feel’ that instinct. And for the lower classes, it’s to their advantage to express, and act upon those feelings.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-30 13:14:00 UTC

  • MORAL ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTY ARE ACTS OF FRAUD They are attempts to ob

    MORAL ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTY ARE ACTS OF FRAUD

    They are attempts to obtain property rights at a discount by misrepresentation.

    The source of property is violence. The violence to create a monopoly on the definition of property rights.

    You only have, and only earn, property rights by the application of, and threat of, violence.

    Violence is a virtue.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-29 03:26:00 UTC

  • THE ILLUSION OF PRODUCTION One psychological trick of moral deception that left

    THE ILLUSION OF PRODUCTION

    One psychological trick of moral deception that left leaning economists rely upon is the implication that the term “production” is merely a process of execution.

    This process of execution is contrasted with the process of “research and development”, with the implication that there is no risk to production and high risk in research and development.

    Furthermore, that the economy consist entirely of processes of production, and that research and development is largely unnecessary and a luxury of those few who find their entertainment in it.

    As such, a process of production is a form of exploitation of labor, and the process of research and development is an unnecessary device for the purpose of signaling status.

    But this is all an illusion. An error at best, and a deception at worst.

    All production in a competitive market at all times under all circumstances is an act of “research and development” at high risk.

    Two private sector factors reduce that risk: superior knowledge of consumer wants, and superior knowledge of how to service them, more cheaply than someone else.

    Two factors further reduce that risk: grant of privilege by the state that conveys a limited monopoly. And access to credit markets at lower rates.

    The human bias in favor of the illusion of competence pervades the left and is its source of confidence. This bias is further reinforced by the false consensus bias, which confirms their illusion of competence.

    Their participation in a discipline in which they hold the unique academic privilege of not being held accountable for their errors further reinforces both the false consensus and illusion if competence biases.

    All economic action is risk taking.

    The state grants privileges in the form of limited monopoly powers to certain industries in order to increase employment and taxes. It creates expansive credit to empower both industry and consumer to take risks.

    If production were execution rather than risk taking, then credit and privilege would not be necessary.

    But production is an illusion. The market consists entirely of research and development.

    And the absurdly high turnover in organizations is but one proof of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:27:00 UTC

  • WHATS WRONG WITH UKRAINE: SYSTEMIC ENDEMIC CORRUPTION The bureaucrats prey on th

    WHATS WRONG WITH UKRAINE: SYSTEMIC ENDEMIC CORRUPTION

    The bureaucrats prey on the citizens. Who despite this level of corruption are, from my subjective opinion, the finest people currently living on planet earth.

    “Ukraine suffers from widespread corruption throughout its economic and political system. Many businesses are subject to theft, extortion and fraud. The problem has been exacerbated by the existence of poorly paid police forces which have failed to combat the significant levels of organized criminal activity” – Chadbourne, Kyiv

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-15 12:58:00 UTC

  • WHATS WRONG WITH UKRAINE: “…financial reports are prepared for tax purposes ra

    WHATS WRONG WITH UKRAINE:

    “…financial reports are prepared for tax purposes rather than as a means of establishing their financial state.”

    You cannot trust any numbers here unless they are kept by a foreign national using western accounting standards. (GAAP).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-15 12:56:00 UTC

  • DIPLOMACY: The art of saying “nice doggy” while looking for a rock

    DIPLOMACY:

    The art of saying “nice doggy” while looking for a rock.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-14 19:12:00 UTC

  • PREDICTION RANT Neither the weather nor the economy are predictable except at th

    PREDICTION RANT

    Neither the weather nor the economy are predictable except at the extremes. Weathermen and Economists sell us good feelings: the illusion that we can plan the future with some degree of confidence, as if we can exchange contract rights with nature and market.

    um…. no. It’s Shamanism: hand-waving that makes us feel better in the face of uncertainty because it releases hormones.

    But it’s still shamanism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-14 11:26:00 UTC