Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

    —“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

  • Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

    —“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

  • Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.

    [L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?

    Curt Doolittle: Yes

  • Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.

    [L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?

    Curt Doolittle: Yes

  • Curiously, what many people don’t realize is the extent to which giving truthful

    —Curiously, what many people don’t realize is the extent to which giving truthful testimony, having skin in the game (borrowing from Taleb), speaking one’s mind without regards to political correctness, and acting in line with what one says, generate both short-term AND long-term gains.— Johannes Meixner

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-21 04:49:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“So how does one define morality in this view? What is its foundation?”-

    Q&A:

    —“So how does one define morality in this view? What is its foundation?”—

    At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”—

    A testimony (or promise or description) delivered as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations.

    Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts.

    In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas.

    –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””–

    Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on. Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-19 15:56:00 UTC

  • ENSURING THE LOSERS Cooperation is preserved by insuring ‘losers’. But if losers

    ENSURING THE LOSERS

    Cooperation is preserved by insuring ‘losers’. But if losers claim insurance, they are by that demonstration not able to engage in reproduction beyond one child. Asking our best women to have four children, and asking our dependent women to have one child, and prohibiting underclass immigration is the only means of genetic pacification and gradual eugenics that we need participate in if we are to build the high trust society. This ensures everyone against the vicissitudes of nature, but does not propagate ‘errors’ (defects).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-17 02:02:00 UTC

  • LOYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure

    LOYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 07:51:00 UTC

  • **Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. E

    **Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.**

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-10 16:36:00 UTC

  • Nothing contradictory. You can choose to be criminal and immoral, but the child

    Nothing contradictory. You can choose to be criminal and immoral, but the child cant’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-04 16:15:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628600228137041920

    Reply addressees: @Chef_Gregorio

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628587011625066497

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628587011625066497