Curt Doolittle

Theme: Demonstrated Interests

  • MORAL BLINDNESS AND DEMONSTRATED SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE (interesting post)(reposted

    MORAL BLINDNESS AND DEMONSTRATED SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

    (interesting post)(reposted from comment)

    What I didn’t understand was that the left’s solipsism is non-cognitive, morally blind, inalterable, and very powerful. From the data conservatives understand the world most accurately. followed by moderate democrats who are just practical. libertarians understand the world less, but they use economics as a proxy for understanding which is kind of fascinating really now that I understand it. Progressives have very little grasp of the world, and very little of morality, but do not use economics as a proxy for understanding because they’re confident.

    The left is a genetic expression of the female need to care for a child and advocate for the child in the context of the tribe regardless of the rationality of doing so for the tribe, and regardless of the child’s merits. It’s why mothers of serial killers don’t believe their son’s are guilty, and progressives think that children are the product of the environment not their genes. A mother’s love at the political level. It is understandable in this context, but not rational or beneficial in this context.

    I don’t know the degree to which the ‘cathedral’ influences morality, but using postmodern language has certainly helped them with the educated classes who are LESS dependent on morality. So, in the educated classes, both of which are less moral than the less educated classes, of the two of them, only one (libertarians) uses a proxy for morality, and the other (progressives) have no proxy – no means of sensing objective morality, and no desire for one. Libertarians are outnumbered by progressives more than two to one.

    Libertarians have been distracted by ‘immoral libertarianism’ for thirty years. And unable to fulfill their role as the intellectual leadership of conservatives. So I’m illustrating the errors of immoral libertarianism, and libertarian moral blindness, so that liberty seekers can once again form the intellectual leadership of the much more numerous conservatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 00:04:00 UTC

  • AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY 1) If

    AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY

    1) If you look at mainstream economics as the study of human behavior demonstrated by the record of human actions, then I think it’s an excellent means of conducting research in social science. And, by and large, that is what the economic community engages in, and how most of them describe their work. Because the canons of science suggest that such a claim is all that they can make.

    2) If you look at mainstream economics as the source of government policy which can be used to maximize all available opportunity for consumption, then some economists might argue that is true although a lot might also argue that their work is used for that purpose but should not be, since their science is too young to be used for that purpose.

    3) if you look at mainstream economics as a means by which to justify ‘dishonest socialism’ under the Keynesian model of forcible redistribution without control of the means of production, and a tool by which to undermine western exceptionalism, then it’s really not hard to make that argument.

    4) If you look at economics as the study of moral human cooperation, then austrian economics (or at least, praxeological analysis) exposes the immorality of political intervention in the economy and the consequences of that intervention over the long term. Unfortunately the progressive argument – which can only be settled empirically if and when we demonstrate that they are wrong by catastrophic failure – is that the short term good accomplished (the acceleration of the reproductive rates of the lower classes) compensates for any harm in the long term, and in the long term technology (and our supposed infinite wisdom) will solve that problem in the long run for us.

    CLOSING

    The problem is that under majority rule and monopoly government, we cannot allow the dishonest socialists, and moral and honest austrians to conduct their experiments in parallel. Were we able to divide our polity either internally (by class) or externally (by separate states) we could run this empirical test. I would assume that under that test the keynesian group would reproduce and generate consumption through reproduction that could not be matched by the innovation of the austrian group – since generating demand through innovation is more expensive a research program than generating demand through malthusian reproduction.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 12:22:00 UTC

  • A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS If people all identify and seize an opportunity becau

    A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS

    If people all identify and seize an opportunity because of a coincidence of interests that is not a conspiracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-18 07:46:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN QUESTION 1 What is the difference between: (a) that which people dem

    LIBERTARIAN QUESTION 1

    What is the difference between:

    (a) that which people demonstrate that they consider property

    (b) that which rothbardians define as property?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 05:23:00 UTC

  • Voting Morally, Even If Against Your Economic Interest, Is Voting Rationally

    (minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).

  • Voting Morally, Even If Against Your Economic Interest, Is Voting Rationally

    (minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).

  • Ruining An Austrian's Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian’s Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian's Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian’s Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.