Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • PHILOSOPHERS Personal-Preferential <--Utilitarian-Ethical--> Political-Decidable

    PHILOSOPHERS

    Personal-Preferential <–Utilitarian-Ethical–> Political-Decidable

    Preference<———————Utility————————>Necessity

    Satisfaction<—————–Cooperation——————->Conflict

    The reason we dispute the question ‘what is philosophy’ is the diversity of decisions we must make, and each person prefers to claim philosohpy for the problem set he wishes to hold precedence over the others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 07:10:00 UTC

  • Ancapism Cannot Survive Market Competition

    ***”anarchism lacks institutions for construction of decidable law, and the production of commons necessary for the continuous development of suppression of parasitism and continuous development of competitive commons. It’s an ethic for disasporic people who free ride upon nation states, but it cannot serve as the institutional basis of a voluntary polity because one cannot create a polity that can compete for members with other polities. in other words, ancapism cannot produce a polity that can survive in the market for polities without a host polity and institutions that it parasitically lives within”***

  • Ancapism Cannot Survive Market Competition

    ***”anarchism lacks institutions for construction of decidable law, and the production of commons necessary for the continuous development of suppression of parasitism and continuous development of competitive commons. It’s an ethic for disasporic people who free ride upon nation states, but it cannot serve as the institutional basis of a voluntary polity because one cannot create a polity that can compete for members with other polities. in other words, ancapism cannot produce a polity that can survive in the market for polities without a host polity and institutions that it parasitically lives within”***

  • Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

    It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
    The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

    It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
    The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Decidability And Morality

    While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessarily a test of truth. Whereas testimonial decidability does serve as a test of truth. We tend to confuse platonic truth (that arrangement of ideas we might possess if we possessed more information than we currently do) where our model is infinitely intertemporal(extends into the future regardless of problem set, with decidable truth, where our model is a problem we seek to solve with the knowledge available, with analytic truth, where we possess all possible knowledge because our model is axiomatic. But this is a confusion of the information present at different points of the present

    The problem for these philosophers of empty verbalism, is that once a theory provides perfect decidability, it’s true by all possible measures. So natural law is ‘true’ even if you don’t like it. Now if you don’t like it, then I (we) can certainly understand why – you lose all opportunity for parasitism. Now you might make claims that reciprocal insurance in which you or others become beneficiaries isn’t parasitism. But then we would have to distinguish between accident and choice. And in that analysis, there are very few acts of god other than catastrophic illness and natural disasters that are not your choice. Even those are largely avoidable if you haven’t chosen poorly. This is why so many people prefer to hang on pseudo-moral arguments, and pseudo-moral religious arguments: in order to preserve their parasitism. When instead, they could simply offer to be better people in exchange for that which they seek> And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Self-discipline is a high cost and one that many of us seek to avoid paying by making false moral and religious claims in order to obtain benefits by acts of deception using appeals to our signals of status and self-worth, charity, and altruism.. Whereas the moral folk, who build good families, object to the vast difference in payments of self-discipline that they contribute to the commons, as well as the material payments they make to those who fail to exercise that discipline. Why? Because they pay double. whereas they would gladly pay money in return for behavior.

  • Decidability And Morality

    While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessarily a test of truth. Whereas testimonial decidability does serve as a test of truth. We tend to confuse platonic truth (that arrangement of ideas we might possess if we possessed more information than we currently do) where our model is infinitely intertemporal(extends into the future regardless of problem set, with decidable truth, where our model is a problem we seek to solve with the knowledge available, with analytic truth, where we possess all possible knowledge because our model is axiomatic. But this is a confusion of the information present at different points of the present

    The problem for these philosophers of empty verbalism, is that once a theory provides perfect decidability, it’s true by all possible measures. So natural law is ‘true’ even if you don’t like it. Now if you don’t like it, then I (we) can certainly understand why – you lose all opportunity for parasitism. Now you might make claims that reciprocal insurance in which you or others become beneficiaries isn’t parasitism. But then we would have to distinguish between accident and choice. And in that analysis, there are very few acts of god other than catastrophic illness and natural disasters that are not your choice. Even those are largely avoidable if you haven’t chosen poorly. This is why so many people prefer to hang on pseudo-moral arguments, and pseudo-moral religious arguments: in order to preserve their parasitism. When instead, they could simply offer to be better people in exchange for that which they seek> And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Self-discipline is a high cost and one that many of us seek to avoid paying by making false moral and religious claims in order to obtain benefits by acts of deception using appeals to our signals of status and self-worth, charity, and altruism.. Whereas the moral folk, who build good families, object to the vast difference in payments of self-discipline that they contribute to the commons, as well as the material payments they make to those who fail to exercise that discipline. Why? Because they pay double. whereas they would gladly pay money in return for behavior.

  • Sequences

    SEQUENCE:

    1. COMPUTABLE (DETERMINISTIC),
    2. CALCULABLE (NON-COMPUTABLE/DEDUCTIVE/LOGICAL)
    3. RATIONAL (INDUCTIVE/NON-CONTRADICTORY),
    4. IMAGINABLE (ABDUCTIVE/VAGUELY ASSOCIABLE).
    5. IRRATIONAL (UNIMAGINABLE / INASSOCIABLE )

  • Sequences

    SEQUENCE:

    1. COMPUTABLE (DETERMINISTIC),
    2. CALCULABLE (NON-COMPUTABLE/DEDUCTIVE/LOGICAL)
    3. RATIONAL (INDUCTIVE/NON-CONTRADICTORY),
    4. IMAGINABLE (ABDUCTIVE/VAGUELY ASSOCIABLE).
    5. IRRATIONAL (UNIMAGINABLE / INASSOCIABLE )

  • The Uncomfortable Political Truth We Must Adapt To In This Century

    Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual. I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law. I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs. But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence. We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people. And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>