Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN AUSTRIAN? WELL, AUSTRIAN ECON IS THE CLOSEST TO NATU

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN AUSTRIAN?

    WELL, AUSTRIAN ECON IS THE CLOSEST TO NATURAL LAW

    I have evolved (by accident) into a specialist in natural law (reciprocity) and rule of law (non-discretion), resulting in markets(voluntary cooperation) in all walks of life. Part of this specialization is an extraordinarily precise criteria for truthful speech, the result of which is completing the scientific method.

    So since Austrian econ is the closest possible model to rule of law, I tend to consider myself somewhere between austrian and chicago, with a bias to austrian in law, and a bias toward chicago in the production of commons.

    Austrian econ is an appropriated term. Because there are two branches : Mengerian, which is fully integrated into mainstream thought, and Misesian, which is not.

    I’ve written exhaustively about the failures of Mises and Rothbard even if Mises came very close to one of the most important discoveries in economic history. He calls this positivist (justificationary) discipline ‘praxeology’, but this is a pseudoscientific claim.

    If however, we combine mises with popper (falsificationism), and mathematical intuitionism and the operationalist movement in physics, you realize that mises tried to make a positive axiomatic logic out of economics, rather than realize he had discovered falsificationism in economics. And then rothbard came along and ruined Mises reputation so badly that we can’t rescue it.

    To say you are an Austrian today probably means nothing other than that you seek to improve institutions of cooperation, and are rather firm in the belief that the business cycle must be allowed to self correct regularly or it will only increase and expand corrections until a ‘collapse’.

    To be a ‘praxeologist’ in the positivist stense requires you’re a bit of an idiot – because in fact, economic phenomenon at any scale must eventually be discovered empirically. On the other hand, as a falsificationist, to say ‘If I can’t construct that observed phenomenon from rational human choices then it can’t be true” means you’ve learned the lesson that Mises inarticulately tried to teach us.

    And if you study both austrian econ and the law you understand that mises and rothbard (and hoppe) were confused, in that mainstream econ violates natural law (reciprocity), spends down accumulated capital of the most precious categories to increase population that overloads the earth, and is objectively immoral by ever standard.

    As far as I know Austrian Econ today favors the study of behavior, entrepreneurship(individual choice), political economy(institutional impact on economies), and preservation of rule of law over rule by discretion. So the state is the provider of cooperative institutions.

    As far as I know Chicago tends to maintain these but emphasize monetary policy moreso – with the state as insurer of last resort.

    As far as I know Saltwater (Mainstream) tends to seek to maximize consumption at the expense of rule of law – replacing it with rule by discretion, with the state as the direct manipulator of the economy.

    These are actually moral predispositions which is why people self select into these specializations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-27 14:49:00 UTC

  • “Do you consider yourself an Austrian?”– I have evolved (by accident) into a sp

    –“Do you consider yourself an Austrian?”–

    I have evolved (by accident) into a specialist in natural law (reciprocity) and rule of law (non-discretion), resulting in markets(voluntary cooperation) in all walks of life. Part of this specialization is an extraordinarily precise criteria for truthful speech, the result of which is completing the scientific method.

    So since Austrian econ is the closest possible model to rule of law, I tend to consider myself somewhere between austrian and chicago, with a bias probably toward chicago.

    Austrian econ is an appropriated term. Because there are two branches : Mengerian, which is fully integrated into mainstream thought, and Misesian, which is not.

    I’ve written exhaustively about the failures of Mises and Rothbard in particular even if Mises came very close to one of the most important discoveries in economic history.

    He calls this positivist (justificationary) discipline ‘praxeology’, but this is pseudoscientific. If you however, combine mises with popper (falsificationism), and mathematical intuitionism and the operationalist movement in physics, you realize that mises tried to make a positive axiomatic logic out of economics, rather than realize he had discovered falsificationism in economics. And then rothbard came along and ruined Mises reputation so badly that we can’t rescue it.

    To say you are an Austrian today probably means nothing other than that you seek to improve institutions of cooperation, and are rather firm in the belief that the business cycle must be allowed to self correct regularly or it will only increase and expand corrections until a ‘collapse’.

    To be a ‘praxeologist’ in the positivist stense requires you’re a bit of an idiot – because in fact, economic phenomenon at any scale must eventually be discovered empirically. On the other hand, as a falsificationist, to say ‘If I can’t construct that phenomenon from rational human choices then it can’t be true” means you’ve learned the lesson that Mises inarticulately tried to teach us.

    As far as I know Austrian Econ today favors the study of behavior, entrepreneurship(individual choice), political economy(institutional impact on economies), and preservation of rule of law over rule by discretion. So the state is the provider of cooperative institutions.

    As far as I know Chicago tends to maintain these but emphasize monetary policy moreso – with the state as insurer of last resort.

    As far as I know Saltwater (Mainstream) tends to seek to maximize consumption at the expense of rule of law – replacing it with rule by discretion, with the state as the direct manipulator of the economy.

    These are actually moral predispositions which is why people self select into these specializations.

    I’m a scientist in that discipline we call law (cooperation). And as such I favor the austrian and chicago methods of action over the saltwater.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:00:00 UTC

  • “Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken becaus

    —“Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken because men are no longer Hoplites – no longer husbands of their freeholds.”—Greg Swann

    The militia owns the commons, and tends it as a garden, or the commons is nothing but weeds – and like all countries lacking a militia – full of trash and fecal matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:47:00 UTC

  • You see, let a thousand nations bloom, and let a thousand philosophers bloom. Pr

    You see, let a thousand nations bloom, and let a thousand philosophers bloom. Propertarianism is just science. What you do with that science is not my business – other than to enjoy the works you make with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 18:17:00 UTC

  • “Does that Mean the Thing They Killed Has No Value?”

    —“Curt Doolittle If someone kills something, and nobody punishes them for doing so, does that mean the thing they killed has no value?”— Michael D. Abbott omg that is a really really smart question. Really.. Um, if that person was not insured by others, then it means it did not have sufficient value to insure. That does not mean it had no potential value. —“It’s not only the things we pay for. It’s also the things we punish for as well, yes?”—Michael D. Abbott Um, I would ask you to be more precise but I think, yes. The fact that we punish for it, (insure it) is evidence of the value of something. The fact that we don’t (insure it) is evidence that we don’t’ Lets just remember that we’re a little stupid now and then… 😉

  • “Does that Mean the Thing They Killed Has No Value?”

    —“Curt Doolittle If someone kills something, and nobody punishes them for doing so, does that mean the thing they killed has no value?”— Michael D. Abbott omg that is a really really smart question. Really.. Um, if that person was not insured by others, then it means it did not have sufficient value to insure. That does not mean it had no potential value. —“It’s not only the things we pay for. It’s also the things we punish for as well, yes?”—Michael D. Abbott Um, I would ask you to be more precise but I think, yes. The fact that we punish for it, (insure it) is evidence of the value of something. The fact that we don’t (insure it) is evidence that we don’t’ Lets just remember that we’re a little stupid now and then… 😉

  • TAXATION by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then

    TAXATION

    by Bill Anderson

    —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above.

    Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable.

    Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism.

    Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:08:00 UTC

  • Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productiv

    Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed.

    The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental.

    The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military).

    If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 14:15:00 UTC

  • If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.

    Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.

  • If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.

    Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.