Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • The purpose of postmodernism is to lie so we take risks. The purpose of knowing

    The purpose of postmodernism is to lie so we take risks. The purpose of knowing our limits is to refrain from taking risks.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 00:03:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828756151118528512

    Reply addressees: @nickgillespie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828755610183335941

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nickgillespie

    Disagree strongly w this. Postmodernism very close to Hayekian/libertarian vision of limits to knowledge https://t.co/Bb59cdheCr https://t.co/7CXnElhLh6

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828755610183335941

  • JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Re

    JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE

    The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Restore Defamation, Libel, Slander, and the requirement for Truthful Speech in matters of the commons that the ‘press’ worked so diligently to eliminate from the common law. If one is accountable for one’s words, just as doctors are for theirs, lawyers are for theirs, CPA’s are for theirs, and CEO’s are for theirs, then perhaps ‘journalism’ will cease meaning ‘propaganda that provides opportunity for selling advertising’. Because that’s all it means today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 07:47:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY: DECIDABILITY. TRUTH IS A CONSEQUENCE. #Conservative #

    THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY: DECIDABILITY. TRUTH IS A CONSEQUENCE.
    #Conservative #Libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/T9Nro06ZHL

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 15:49:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828269423526023168

  • N.A.P. AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE #Conservative #Libertarian #NewRight #Trump

    N.A.P. AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE
    #Conservative #Libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/aF6zEN57eY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 15:44:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828268110214000642

  • WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH? (Note: for followers, pls note the use of these

    WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH?

    (Note: for followers, pls note the use of these series/sequences/spectrum of decidability)(Q:how would the argument differ without them, if I relied on advocacy for testimonialism as an ideal type, instead of illustration by spectrum? )

    —“If [propertarianism and testimonialism] were attractive would it not pull us from philosophy? (convince us?) “— A Friend

    Would not religion pull us from superstition?

    Would not philosophy pull us from religion?

    Would not science pull us from philosophy?

    Would not testimonialism (complete science) pull us from science?

    Or, is religion all that is possible for some of certain limited abilities, philosophy only possible for some others of certain limited abilities, science only possible for some of certain limited abilities, and Testimonialism only possible for some of certain limited abilities?

    If not everyone is pulled forward by each technological advancement in decidability, then why do we see both the retention of superstition, religion, philosophy, and science, and why we see innovations in superstition, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and (in the near future) pseudotestimonialism?

    We do not choose what is true for our means of decidability. We choose what is useful. If superstition, religion, pseudorationalism, philosophy, pseudoscience, science, pseudotestimonialism, and testimonialism are useful for different groups for different purposes, because of what we can ‘get away with’ in each discipline given its lack of precision, or openness to fraud, then we should expect people to seek what is beneficial to them with each technology of decidability.

    And that is what we see.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 14:46:00 UTC

  • PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY: DECIDABILITY. TRUTH IS A CONSEQUENCE. #Conservative #Libe

    https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/828269423526023168/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=828269423526023168THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY: DECIDABILITY. TRUTH IS A CONSEQUENCE.

    #Conservative #Libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/T9Nro06ZHL

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 10:49:00 UTC

  • I don’t block and unfriend people for bad arguments, but for ridicule in the abs

    I don’t block and unfriend people for bad arguments, but for ridicule in the absence of argument. If you’re gonna waste my time and attention, at least do something of equal effort in order to earn it. 😉 I mean, seriously. conduct a fair trade. lol

    (too many idiots among the libertarians)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 19:55:00 UTC

  • WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT. if you have two false premises, but from them draw a t

    WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT.

    if you have two false premises, but from them draw a true conclusion, then use that conclusion as a premise from which to draw further conclusions, you will still come up with true conclusions. In Hoppe’s case the difference between his opinion and mine is the possibility of the formation of a polity that lacks property in toto as the basis of rule of law. In other words, hoppe’s presumptions are false, his conclusion is true, and that conclusion (property) when used as a premise provides him with more precise explanatory power than rothbard. By correcting hoppe’s premises and using the language of science, my work merely IMPROVES upon hoppe’s.

    Whenever he is talking through a set of incentives he’s right. When ever he is justifying property rights he’s wrong. Whenever he is explaining the consequences of respecting property rights, he’s right.

    The problem is he’s proud of the stuff that’s false, and doesn’t appreciate the contribution he’s made by demonstrating what is true:

    THat all rights private, common, and evolutionary, are reducible to property rights continent only upon a sufficient scope of property rights that will enable a polity to survive in competition with those that do not provide those rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 15:28:00 UTC

  • “I too dislike being wrong. But I prefer bold truths than half lies.”— Craig K

    —“I too dislike being wrong. But I prefer bold truths than half lies.”— Craig Kelley

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 15:23:00 UTC

  • “Does this obnoxious guy always talk down to everyone like this? Kinda a shitty

    —“Does this obnoxious guy always talk down to everyone like this? Kinda a shitty way to be.”—Murdoch Pizgatti

    It is the only way to force people to confront the lies that they tell themselves and then spread to others – all of which prevents the unification of those who desire sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy by need.

    In other words, as a useful idiot, those with false beliefs spread harm to others and in doing so undermine the cause of sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy.

    (Libertinism is just communism for commons.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 13:20:00 UTC