Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • MY PURPOSE IN REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECON: SCIENCE (from elsewhere) Peter, Thanks fo

    MY PURPOSE IN REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECON: SCIENCE

    (from elsewhere)

    Peter,

    Thanks for the response. Sorry this is long, but it takes what it takes.

    —“Read one way….read another way”—

    Well of course. But then, that is the difference between analytic (empirical criticism) and continental (rational justification). Or more precisely, that’s the difference between science and philosophy.

    But it is not just a binary choice. I can read it a third way: that Mises was a member of the cosmopolitan enlightenment and subject to the category errors of that movement. Just as anglos, french and germans were subject to the errors of their enlightenments: the attempt to universalize local competitive group strategies into general moral rules. That is the goal of each of the enlightenment movements: Anglo island, French imperial, German Territorial, and Jewish diasporic strategies expressed as rational rather than mythological arguments.

    I think it’ might help to understand the purpose for my criticism:

    (1) It’s necessary to the defeat of the broader problem of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, anglo neo-puritanism, postmodern propagandism, and less so, german idealism – in all disciplines.

    (2) It’s necessary to undermine the libertarian problem-children: Rothbardians, who promote psudosicence, objective immorality, pseudorationalism, and justificationism. (People who I am very proud to have done substantial damage to over the past year – and will continue to.)

    3) It’s necessary to restate western liberty in scientific rather than rational terms in order to save the rule of law, and with it, liberty.

    So if I am hard on Mises, it’s because of these three reasons. I have to be. Because without institutionaliing a means of ending deceit, where loading, framing, overloading via propaganda and pseudoscience are principle tools of coercion, there is no possible means of reconstructing liberty.

    I am such an admirer of yours because you are a good and moral man; a great communicator; arguably one of the great teachers in the field; but your incentives as such are sympathetic and explicative, not corrective. Mine are corrective and revolutionary: the problem of pseudoscience (which has a very precise meaning) in economics, which Romer has tried to bring to the forefront, is central to the perceived Heterodoxy of Austrian economics (or more correctly “Moral Economics”).

    Mises was right in this regard: if any economic statement cannot be constructed through subjectively testable operations (human judgements in response to available information) then no proof has been demonstrated. A proof is not confirmation, it is merely a criticism. A means of falsification. If a statement survives a proof, then it is at least existentially possible.

    If it took very smart people in mathematics to create the foundations of mathematics, it will take very smart people in economics to create the foundations of economics – because the well is poisoned. Mises was very close, but for cultural reasons endemic to his era, he failed.

    This is a very complex problem, or someone else would have solved it by now. I am just lucky to live in the internet era, and have had the luxury of studying all of the disciplines, and stumbling upon Mises by accident via Hoppe’s inverted but still brilliant application of economic language to moral argument. All his other errors aside, his pedantic rigor was the first application of operational analysis using property and voluntary exchange to all of social science.

    The operational revolution failed: Minsky in Computer Science, Mises in economics, Bridgman in physics, Brouwer in Math, Popper in Philosophy.

    Einstein demonstrated the problem (frame) and instigated both Brouwer and Bridgman: no premises are certain. None.

    Economics can be the study of objective morality or of objective immorality. At present, the fallacy of majority rule provides incentive to justify objectively immoral economics, and to sideline as heterodox moral economics.

    So saving the west, saving rule of law, saving economics, saving philosophy, saving western truth, and correcting the century of pseudoscience, are all identical problems: completing the minimum set of warranties of due diligence necessary to testify that one has eliminated imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit.

    Austrian economics and conservative social mores are empirical: when the evidence forces change in behavior, then norms and law should reflect it – not before. This is an empirical and anti-hubristic philosophy. But Austrian econ and Conservative social philosophy are not yet scientific: meaning not yet truthfully stated and warrantied.

    That is what I am trying to accomplish (and think I have.)

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 03:45:00 UTC

  • MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/charles-murray-and-jonah-goldberg-on-civil-disobedience/CHARLES MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 07:49:00 UTC

  • BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS? SEAN GABB PUTS ONE FORWARD (I thought I’d add to it.) —

    http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/05/10/a-draft-bill-of-rights-for-the-united-kingdom/A BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS? SEAN GABB PUTS ONE FORWARD

    (I thought I’d add to it.)

    —

    Sean, Thoughts as I have them given Epstein, Hayek, and what we have seen in the states…

    a) No law shall be applied retroactively (no law no crime, no law no fine, no law no fee)

    b) Specify that unreasonable time be determined independent of the resources or constraints of the courts. (this will solve the vast majority of problems)

    c) Search and seizure does not prohibit freezing of assets, and it must, since this has gotten out of control in the states. American courts abuse this to starve you or impoverish you into submission.

    d) All persons acting in a crown capacity: police, administration, and judiciary, are required to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Police in america are incentivized to lie and have become very good at it.

    e) Prohibit entrapment. This has gotten out of hand in the states.

    f) Jury nullification for unjust laws. (Obvious)

    h) Separate violent and non violent offenders. Use single person cells if cells are required.

    g) Restore Libel Defamation and Slander (unless statements are true)

    h) prohibition upon infringement not violation.

    If possible (hard to swallow):

    i) universal standing in cases of violation of these (BoR) rights ( meaning that one need not be harmed, only possess direct knowledge of an infringement of these rights. If one possesses direct knowledge and does not act to prosecute infringement, then one is a conspiracy to the infringement.)

    j) all persons engaged in the administration of the law: police, administration and judiciary are personally liable for their actions, and must possess private insurance (bonds) to perform their duties.

    Sean Gabb’s Original Post:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:33:00 UTC

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED. Conservatism, has fail

    https://www.traditionalright.com/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-new-right/NO TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED.

    Conservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism).

    Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power.

    I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments.

    And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university.

    And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.)

    The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling.

    Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon.

    One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough.

    Because, Truth is enough.

    If we only will use violence to demand it.

    Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus.

    There is no more truthful action than violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 05:51:00 UTC

  • THE COST OF REVOLUTION 1) Revolutions are a cost. Not revolting is a cost. The q

    THE COST OF REVOLUTION

    1) Revolutions are a cost. Not revolting is a cost. The question is only which we prefer to pay.

    2) Property rights are obtained by raising the cost of not exchanging property rights. They are lost by failing to pay the cost of making property rights cheaper than their absence.

    3) Liberty is obtained by raising the cost of infringing upon liberty. Liberty is lost by failing to pay the cost of making liberty cheaper than the alternatives.

    4) The common law is obtained by raising the cost of constructing legislative commands and regulations. The common law is lost by failing to pay the cost of making the common law cheaper than its alternatives.

    Western civilization has accumulated a great deal of fragility. We can no longer (like Russians and Ukrainians) return to the farm for survival. There are four hours of energy, one day of water, four to six days of food, three weeks of order, 30 days of economic stability, and 90 days of political stability, in the funnel.

    We no longer need armies, masses in the streets, or a political majority to construct a revolution. What prevents a revolution today, is merely a solution that a minority are willing to fight for, despite paying the highest possible price.

    Property rights are constructed by the threat of violence and predation if they are not constructed.

    All other arguments are acts of free riding: theft by fraud. The attempt to obtain property rights without paying the (high ) cost of them.

    There can be no discount on liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 10:50:00 UTC

  • If you use PSYCHOLOGIZING or MORALIZING, RATIONALISM or LAW, rather than PROPERT

    If you use PSYCHOLOGIZING or MORALIZING, RATIONALISM or LAW, rather than PROPERTARIANISM you are part of the problem.

    Become part of the solution instead.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 05:03:00 UTC

  • The Only Means Of Eliminating The State And Constructing Liberty

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    [T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:
    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    [F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    [A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Only Means Of Eliminating The State And Constructing Liberty

    (north sea libertarian liberty)

    [T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

    The state provides just these services:
    …1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
    …2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
    …3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
    …4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

    The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
    …1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
    …2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
    …3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

    A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

    [F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

    The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

    [A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
    …1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
    …2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
    …3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
    …4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
    …5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
    …6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

    The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

    Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine