Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    [W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….

  • WE AREN’T DEBATING: I”M PROSECUTING YOU. —We aren’t debating, or discoursing.

    WE AREN’T DEBATING: I”M PROSECUTING YOU.

    —We aren’t debating, or discoursing. We can’t debate or discourse until we’re not lying. Until we’re not lying we’re in conflict. So I am prosecuting your ideas to ensure you’re not lying. Only after you’re no longer lying, can we say that we are negotiating an exchange. But if we start from your premise of lying, and your premise of falsehoods, an honest exchange is not possible. If an honest exchange is not possible, the violence is preferable. So I am not trying to discover the truth. They truth is unknowable. I am not trying to discover an optimum solution, because it may be unknowable. I am only trying to ensure that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. At that point, what remains is but truth. And all truthful exchanges of mutual benefit are ‘true’ and ‘optimum’. And all lies and thefts by lie are neither true nor optimum. So you start from the position of maximizing benefit. I start from the position of needing a reason not to kill you for lying.—

    (PS: If you combine ethical propertarianism with personal stoicism you are probably the very best thinker that man can be.)

    Eli Harman Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 03:58:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH INQUISITION? IS THAT WHAT WE EVOLVE INTO? I mean, do we evolve into an

    THE TRUTH INQUISITION? IS THAT WHAT WE EVOLVE INTO?

    I mean, do we evolve into an independent judiciary? Just as law is a ‘cult’ do we start out as a series of prosecutors against the heresies of pseudoscience, postmodernism, propaganda and lying? Is that how we take back the church?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 03:33:00 UTC

  • THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS. —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someon

    THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS.

    —-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

    Well, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense.

    (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon.

    (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable.

    (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof

    (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits.

    (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements).

    (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content.

    (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content.

    We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever.

    We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us.

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth.

    Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining.

    Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion.

    Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) but we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet, because we do not know them – although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can.

    Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on.

    I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on.

    I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on.

    The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history.

    The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms. through the definitions of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life.

    There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty.

    Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others.

    Now you can go run to hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them.

    What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit.

    Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over.

    Welcome to the new age.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-18 15:21:00 UTC

  • Well saying we don’t agree is to use a rhetorical fallacy. Statements are true,

    Well saying we don’t agree is to use a rhetorical fallacy. Statements are true, false, or incomplete, whether we agree with one another or not.

    1) There exist no laws of science itself. There exist, and we have evolved, procedures that we use to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit from our hypothesis. These processes do not tell us a statement is true, they tell us only that it remains a truth candidate if it survives that set of criticisms.

    2) There exist intuitions, hypothesis, theories, laws, and tautologies, because we have constructed them, and demonstrate them as such.

    3) But there exist no non-tautological, yet certain premises: in other words, in any statement of arbitrary precision, we must seek limits, because all general rules possess limits. This is where mises failed by attempting to make use of justificationary Kantian rationalism instead of critical Popperian rationalism:science. Since there are no certain premises there are no certain deductions. Since there are laws we may deduce from them outcomes of equal precision. But if these are imprecise, then so are our deductions.

    4) We can construct descriptive statements (theories) that are true, but inactionable, because they lack sufficient precision. A regularity may be so slow (business cycles, political cycles, generation cycles, and civilizational cycles) that no matter what we do within them, it is merely noise.

    Mises proposition that history is non-regular is based upon the presumption that each exchange is unique because it is both subjective and momentary.

    But he also proposes that we can empathize (sympathize) with economic statements and thereby test the rationality of any incentive.

    This pair of propositions constitutes is a logical contradiction. Since we can decide whether an incentive is rational, and we can test the rationality of others decisions (it’s how we test liars in court), then our judgements are marginally indifferent. If they are marginally indifferent, then they can be represented as constants.

    So at one end of the spectrum, decisions are marginally indifferent and we have tested this in thousands of ways in both economics and experimental psychology.

    And at the other end his purported axioms (action), and his purported laws (inflation, the neutrality of money, minimum wage) are both sufficiently imprecise as to be inactionable. When in fact, it is possible to produce intentional externalities by intentionally mainpulating these behaviors caused by assymetric information and resource distribution.

    And we can (quite accurately) measure those distortions. So it is not that these systems are not regular (they are), or that they are not deterministic (they are), or that they are not actionable (they are actionable), and therefore they are scientifically testable.

    Instead of being impervious to science in the development of general rules, it’s that these actions are immoral: they cause involuntary transfers from people with lower/longer time preference, to those with higher/shorter time preference, and thereby not only steal, but deprive the commons of behavioral change necessary to preserve extended time preference.

    ie: mises confused a moral theft, with a scientific truth.

    This is just one of his many failings in developing his pseudoscientific kantian nonsense – for which he was outcast from the profession, justifiably.

    His second main failing was that he did not grasp that he intuited (as did brouwer in math and bridgman in physics) that praxeology produced proofs of construction, but was insufficient for deduction.

    A proof of construction is necessary (not only in economics but in mathematics) to demonstrate that an economic statement is existentially possible. It is a means of attempting to falsify a statement.

    But most economic effects are not deducible, they are only observable empirically, and then explainable. They are explainable by attempting to construct them from a sequence of rational operations. If they cannot be constructed, then we cannot construct an existence proof, and as such a statement cannot be possible.

    It is possible to construct existence proofs for human actions under Keynesianism. But these proofs tell us that such manipulation is an act of deception that causes involuntary transfers (thefts). It is not that such actions are unscientific.

    As such mises was incorrect. He convused the immoral and the unscientifc. He confused justifiacationism under moral contract, with truth-candidates that survive criticism.

    This is a non-trivial subject. It is probably one of the most important philosopihical questions that hte 20th century philosophers failed to solve. As did all those before them.

    But it’s solved now.

    Mises was just wrong. He was a cosmopolitan, and an austro-hungarian both, and he simple failed. He failed worse than brouwer and bridgman. And because he failed, and hayek failed, we were subject to a century of deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-18 09:17:00 UTC

  • I think I have lost a bunch of you. It seems we get truth. It seems we get the h

    I think I have lost a bunch of you.

    It seems we get truth.

    It seems we get the high trust society.

    It seems we get the western model of truth and trust produce economic velocity.

    It seems we get the reproductive division of perception and cognition.

    It seems we get that the anglo saxon and classical liberal model could not tolerate the enfranchisement of women and the loss of the church as a separate house of government.

    It seems we get the century of mysticism, pseudoscience and propaganda caused by the Jewish century – now at an end.

    But now that I venture into history in search of motivation to restore or sense of kin selection, it seems like everyone wants a single axis of causation: genetic, cultural, institutional, territorial.

    But it’s all of them. Not one.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-17 07:12:00 UTC

  • SO IS TRUTH ENOUGH TO BASE A MORE AGGRESSIVE ‘RELIGION’ UPON? I think it is. The

    SO IS TRUTH ENOUGH TO BASE A MORE AGGRESSIVE ‘RELIGION’ UPON?

    I think it is.

    The end of history is the truthful civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 08:50:00 UTC

  • THANK YOU Thanks to a follower and friend, today I was able to break through one

    THANK YOU

    Thanks to a follower and friend, today I was able to break through one of the conceptual barriers I’ve been facing for over a year. I understand now the OBVERSE vs REVERSE of political epistemology. Moral contract, and legal prohibition.

    Rationalism and Justification vs Science and Criticism.

    THE FUTURE IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY. THAT IS THE END OF HISTORY.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 05:35:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I al

    UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN

    Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

    I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes.

    There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference.

    A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher.

    ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION.

    Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict.

    I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia.

    But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites.

    Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone.

    Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 07:11:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE I WANT TO SEE: Ray Scott Percival (Discuss the completeness of popper’s p

    PEOPLE I WANT TO SEE:

    Ray Scott Percival (Discuss the completeness of popper’s program. And the scientific method’s status)

    Haille Mariam-Lemar (Universalist Strategy – is it possible.)

    Andy Curzon (limits to commons)

    David McDonagh (Apologize for past sins)

    And anyone else who is willing. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 04:03:00 UTC