Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • MANAGEMENT PARADOX I always try to empower my staff. Always. I assume everything

    MANAGEMENT PARADOX

    I always try to empower my staff. Always. I assume everything I know is a theory. And that all theories are open to both falsification and revision. But that in business, as in all life, the problem is that someone has to choose when opinions and preferences differ. I dont know why. But I encounter this problem in every company I start.

    I want to say “Do not confuse the difference between your marginal improvement on the theoretical structure I created, as equal to the construction of the theoretical structure. Don’t think it’s you. Yes you’re steering. I’m still navigating.”

    But if I talk like that no one understands what the hell I am saying.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-27 12:14:00 UTC

  • NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY In the discipline

    NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    In the discipline of law, the jury determines guilt or innocence. This is irrespective of your guilt or innocence. We can deduce your guilt or

    innocence. We can justify your guilt or innocence. But without OBSERVABLE DEMONSTRATION we cannot DEMONSTRATE your guilt or innocence. It is just true in the ABSENCE of observable demonstration because we say so – because we agree.

    In the discipline of math, the accepted practice, is that .999… = 1. This is irrespective of the fact that it is impossible to construct 1 from .9999999… There is no numeric operation that we can perform to do so. We can only DEDUCE it, or claim it.

    We can create arguments. We can create deductions. But we cannot operationally create the number 1 from .999… by the process of addition or subtraction: which is in fact, the basis of all mathematics.

    So if I can get a bunch of people to agree that all people named ‘Brian’, are hosts of demons and should be put to death, then I can have all ‘Brian’s’ put to death. Or if I can get a bunch of people to test whether Brian is telling the truth by seeing if he sinks in a lake, then, if he floats (survives) he is lying.

    I think that is Brian’s argument. Which, of course, is exactly what I’ve been saying. Math can do so, because it is irrelevant. Mathematics is marginally indifferent to more important disciplines. The test of true DEDUCTION is marginal indifference to the outcome. The test of truth existence, is OPERATIONAL (causal) CONSTRUCTION.

    Postmodernism is predicated on the very principle that Brian is advocating: that truth is what we agree it is, not what is independently of our agreement. Not what is OPERATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY true, but what is consensually true – by language.

    A theory can NEVER be true. An operation cannot be false. it just IS. Mathematical operations cannot be false. Mathematical theories (deductions) can NEVER be true.

    Mathematics is responsible for the the creation of the worlds most dangerous religion since Zoroaster invented law of the gods. Math has reinvented magic. And Brian is an acolyte of that religion.

    ’tis how it ’tis. ’tis an inescapable box.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-23 21:44:00 UTC

  • I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we g

    I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we give people property rights. I think the only logical, and ethical statement is, that you can earn them by exchange of them. And if you don’t want to earn them in exchange, then those of us who have earned our property rights by extending property rights to others – well, we are free to use our violence against any and all of those who do not. If you do not exchange property rights, you have no property rights either. and all rights are reducible to property rights. Including the right to life. If you do not respect property rights then we have no moral constraint upon is for your treatment. (??)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 05:02:00 UTC

  • Call me an absolutist, but if you are a soldier you’re altogether different from

    Call me an absolutist, but if you are a soldier you’re altogether different from a contractor.

    We have ancient traditions for objecting to policy. You resign in protest. You bear the burden. And then you do or say whatever you want.

    But if you stay in your post you are a spy, an agent, and by consequence a threat to all others you serve with, by virtue of nothing more than spreading distrust.

    There is nothing unique about Manning. There have been thousands of him. What is rare is that he was not an officer and a gentleman, nor a man of honor to the men with him in service.

    I am sorry he was too stupid to do the right thing the right way. But it is hard to understand how one can be in the service and not understand its moral code.

    I’m as glad as everyone else to see the usa embarrassed. And anyone who reads my chatter knows that i want to reduce the scope of the military and state.

    But i cant support one immorality over another. Especially when what he exposed was trivially embarrassing and little more.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-30 13:21:00 UTC

  • POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION I assume that I don’t understand something. But, i

    POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION

    I assume that I don’t understand something. But, if you live in a neighborhood that has gone from largely homeowners to a significant number of renters, and experienced a proportional increase in crime, and you form a block watch, and you follow someone, and he smacks you for it, and you shoot him for smacking you for just watching him, I don’t see the issue.

    If I make someone nervous who doesn’t know me my reaction is to introduce myself, state why I am there, and make them comfortable, which is what I’d want someone to do for me in the same circumstances. Its just civic duty.

    I mean, why is it ok to smack someone who is out trying to protect the neighborhood, and following you? Objecting to that is sort of an admission that you are up to something.

    Watching a person in public is not a violation of any right I’ve ever heard of. But smacking someone for watching you certainly is. And shooting someone who is smacking you for watching them seems entirely rational, since you violated his body by initiating violence.

    What don’t I understand?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 18:46:00 UTC

  • FUZZY LANGUAGE: ‘RIGHTS’ (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Benth

    FUZZY LANGUAGE: ‘RIGHTS’

    (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. )

    You DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading.

    Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others.

    One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

    i ) One can suggest the world will be better for all if we grant each other certain rights.

    ii ) One can ‘demand rights’ in order for cooperation instead of conflict.

    iii ) One can ‘need and require necessary’ rights from others in order to survive.

    But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them.

    The majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis.

    Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights.

    Might doesn’t make best.

    Might doesn’t make right.

    Might makes whatever property rights you have.

    So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 08:32:00 UTC

  • ANCIENT GENDER BIAS Under Salic law, calling a woman a whore when you cant prove

    ANCIENT GENDER BIAS

    Under Salic law, calling a woman a whore when you cant prove it was almost as bad as attempted murder.

    (65 vs 45 shillings.)

    Sticks and stones must have come later I guess. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 18:23:00 UTC

  • Are There Objectively Moral Statements?

    “There is no such thing as objective morality only preferences and demonstrated preferences.” I’m not sure that’s true. [I]n every society, the portfolio of norms consisting of maners (signals of fitness for voluntary transfer), ethics and morals (prohibitions on involuntary transfer), vary considerably. But all of them are signals of fitness, signals of contribution to a commons, and prohibitions on involuntary transfer. Some of these suites of property rights produce superior economic outcomes, and some inferior. That’s true. But they aren’t preferences. Norms are not preferences they are artifacts of the process of evolutionary cooperation according to prejudices (pre-judgements). Given that human beings universally eschew involuntary transfer, in every possible culture and circumstance, and will act twice as hard to punish it as they will for their own interest, its clear that it’s not a purely subjective phenomenon. And in fact it is a necessary phenomenon which genetics must eventually enforce. So while the arrangement of property rights and obligations in any set of norms may vary, the fact that humans observe norms out of prohibition on involuntary transfer is entirely objective. So, moral actions are only a preference in those cases where normative codes, like laws, are general proscriptions, and where for specific circumstances, one’s actions do not create an involuntary transfer. Moral codes may correctly or incorrectly constituted at any given moment (because they are intergenerational habits and must be constantly re-tested by each generation). But as long as they are prohibitions on involuntary transfers, then they are in fact, objective. If members of a group observe a set of norms, and by observing those norms, forgo opportunities for gratification or self interest, then they have in fact paid for those norms. If others do not pay for those norms, and constrain themselves to signaling, then that’s not an involuntary transfer.if however, others choose to sieze opportunities created by the normative sacrifice of others, then that’s theft, plain and simple. This is a quick treatment of one of mankind’s most challenging topics, but hopefully it will at least give you a few ideas. – Curt BTW: ALSO a) an action is a demonstrated preference. b) a preference is a demonstrated bias c) a bias may or may not be subject to cognition d) a habit is not subject to cognition, thats’ the value of them. They’re cheap. e) a normative habit is rarely understood, but almost universally practiced. Which is the reason we even have this conversation in the first place. f) a metaphysical bias is not subject to cognition, it’s almost never understood by anyone in any culture.

  • THE MARKET PUNISHES IRRESPONSIBILITY. THE GOVERNMENT REWARDS IT

    THE MARKET PUNISHES IRRESPONSIBILITY. THE GOVERNMENT REWARDS IT.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-30 23:30:00 UTC

  • PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they ar

    PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they are CPA’s, and (c) that they are bonded and insured – just like lawyers and doctors.

    This will mean that only very good people will conduct audits and investigations, and that their careers will depend on their neutrality.

    It also means that they will make quite a bit of money, won’t waste their time, will protect their ‘meal ticket’, and will be in short supply, so we don’t have to see them very often.

    Of course, just doing away with the entire institution would be better… 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-15 09:06:00 UTC