Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • The End of History: It’s The Truthful Civilization, Not Democracy. (Sorry Francis)

    (profundity of the day)(read it)(propertarianism provides the wilsonian synthesis)

    [I]f I am correct, and that the reason for western rapidity of innovation, economic velocity, and intellectual progress, is the prevalence of truth telling in all walks of life; and that truth telling begets truth-thinking; and that truth-thinking leads to multitudinous goods – faster than all other institutional solutions; then why are not truth-speaking and truth-thinking as radical an innovation as literacy and reading?

    (I am pretty sure it is.)

    Oath-giving was expensive. Juries were expensive. A senate is expensive. Rule of law was very expensive. Literacy was terribly expensive. Science was expensive. High trust was very expensive. Yet these investments in our commons are the very reasons that westerners produce every good faster than all competing civilizations in both the greco-roman and re-enlightened eras.

    We succeeded in incremental suppression of all free riding, and incremental increase in normative taxation – bearing costs for the production of norms.

    If we require the payment of truth telling, no other innovation in institutions can compete with it.

    Once we have implemented truth telling as common property with universal standing, then we can eliminate the centralization of parasitism in the state: monopoly bureaucracy. We will have successfully suppressed local parasitism and eliminated transaction costs by centralizing parasitism as a means of paying for the transition. Then eliminated the central bureaucracy as a means of parasitism. We can then – and only then – finally live in a nomocracy: under rule of law.

    This simple act will result in the ‘scientific civilization’. It will complete the enlightenment attempt to restore our western civilization to its hellenic and indo european origins – rescuing it from babylonian mysticism forever. Not because people ‘believe’ one thing or another. But because we have eliminate all opportunity to, and utility in, doing otherwise.

    (And if that isn’t the most profound argument you’ve run into this year I’ll be surprised.)

    Source: Curt Doolittle – THE END OF HISTORY: THE SCIENTIFIC (TRUTHFUL)…

  • The End of History: It’s The Truthful Civilization, Not Democracy. (Sorry Francis)

    (profundity of the day)(read it)(propertarianism provides the wilsonian synthesis)

    [I]f I am correct, and that the reason for western rapidity of innovation, economic velocity, and intellectual progress, is the prevalence of truth telling in all walks of life; and that truth telling begets truth-thinking; and that truth-thinking leads to multitudinous goods – faster than all other institutional solutions; then why are not truth-speaking and truth-thinking as radical an innovation as literacy and reading?

    (I am pretty sure it is.)

    Oath-giving was expensive. Juries were expensive. A senate is expensive. Rule of law was very expensive. Literacy was terribly expensive. Science was expensive. High trust was very expensive. Yet these investments in our commons are the very reasons that westerners produce every good faster than all competing civilizations in both the greco-roman and re-enlightened eras.

    We succeeded in incremental suppression of all free riding, and incremental increase in normative taxation – bearing costs for the production of norms.

    If we require the payment of truth telling, no other innovation in institutions can compete with it.

    Once we have implemented truth telling as common property with universal standing, then we can eliminate the centralization of parasitism in the state: monopoly bureaucracy. We will have successfully suppressed local parasitism and eliminated transaction costs by centralizing parasitism as a means of paying for the transition. Then eliminated the central bureaucracy as a means of parasitism. We can then – and only then – finally live in a nomocracy: under rule of law.

    This simple act will result in the ‘scientific civilization’. It will complete the enlightenment attempt to restore our western civilization to its hellenic and indo european origins – rescuing it from babylonian mysticism forever. Not because people ‘believe’ one thing or another. But because we have eliminate all opportunity to, and utility in, doing otherwise.

    (And if that isn’t the most profound argument you’ve run into this year I’ll be surprised.)

    Source: Curt Doolittle – THE END OF HISTORY: THE SCIENTIFIC (TRUTHFUL)…

  • THREE CLASSES AND THREE CHOICES: SCIENTIFIC NOBILITY, UTILITARIAN (DECEITFUL) PU

    THREE CLASSES AND THREE CHOICES: SCIENTIFIC NOBILITY, UTILITARIAN (DECEITFUL) PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL, MYSTICAL PRIESTHOOD.

    (religious trigger warning)

    Kant was still a Christian`, arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics.

    We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy.

    What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events.

    The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases.

    So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction.

    Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level.

    (Spoken as a Catholic myself.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-05 07:43:00 UTC

  • THE END OF HISTORY: THE SCIENTIFIC (TRUTHFUL) CIVILIZATION: THE WEST. (profundit

    THE END OF HISTORY: THE SCIENTIFIC (TRUTHFUL) CIVILIZATION: THE WEST.

    (profundity of the day)(read it)(propertarianism provides the wilsonian synthesis)

    If I am correct, and that the reason for western rapidity of innovation, economic velocity, and intellectual progress, is the prevalence of truth telling in all walks of life; and that truth telling begets truth-thinking; and that truth-thinking leads to multitudinous goods – faster than all other institutional solutions; then why are not truth-speaking and truth-thinking as radical an innovation as literacy and reading?

    (I am pretty sure it is.)

    Oath-giving was expensive. Juries were expensive. A senate is expensive. Rule of law was very expensive. Literacy was terribly expensive. Science was expensive. High trust was very expensive. Yet these investments in our commons are the very reasons that westerners produce every good faster than all competing civilizations in both the greco-roman and re-enlightened eras.

    We succeeded in incremental suppression of all free riding, and incremental increase in normative taxation – bearing costs for the production of norms.

    If we require the payment of truth telling, no other innovation in institutions can compete with it.

    Once we have implemented truth telling as common property with universal standing, then we can eliminate the centralization of parasitism in the state: monopoly bureaucracy. We will have successfully suppressed local parasitism and eliminated transaction costs by centralizing parasitism as a means of paying for the transition. Then eliminated the central bureaucracy as a means of parasitism. We can then – and only then – finally live in a nomocracy: under rule of law.

    This simple act will result in the ‘scientific civilization’. It will complete the enlightenment attempt to restore our western civilization to its hellenic and indo european origins – rescuing it from babylonian mysticism forever. Not because people ‘believe’ one thing or another. But because we have eliminate all opportunity to, and utility in, doing otherwise.

    (And if that isn’t the most profound argument you’ve run into this year I’ll be surprised.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-05 07:34:00 UTC

  • WE CAN DEMAND THAT PEOPLE WARRANTY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THEIR STATEMENTS CURT—“

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/YES WE CAN DEMAND THAT PEOPLE WARRANTY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THEIR STATEMENTS

    CURT—“Why can’t we demand that people warranty the truthfulness of their statements?”—

    RICHARD—“because truth is determined, if at all, by debate and testing, and what cannot be stated while untested is unlikely to receive the scrutiny needed to determine its truth or falsity.”—

    CURT:

    This is not true. TRUTHFULNESS, in all walks of life, not only in the physical sciences, is the result of performance of due diligence: criticism of our testimony. The act of laundering imagination, fantasy, bias, error and deception from our testimony. Justification is false. There are no non-trivial complete premises. We can criticize our extant understanding as thoroughly as possible, but we can never know if we are informationally complete.

    Testimony is unnatural to man. Which is why westerner’s are unique in its construction as a norm: it’s prohibitively expensive.

    Analytic truth (the case you use in your statement above), is impossible to know for other than tautological and trivial statements.

    DEFINITIONS: TRUTH, TRUTHFULNESS, AND HONESTY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/

    DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-05 07:16:00 UTC

  • Due Diligence Necessary For the Warranty of Truthfulness

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

    (Ed: Note: Updated June 26 to reflect addition of warranty #5.)


  • Due Diligence Necessary For the Warranty of Truthfulness

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

    (Ed: Note: Updated June 26 to reflect addition of warranty #5.)


  • This is one of the great unsolved philosophical problems of the 20th century: Du

    This is one of the great unsolved philosophical problems of the 20th century: Due diligence in one’s criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 09:21:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606390194686803968

    Reply addressees: @TCJUK @paulmromer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606073461837070336

    IN REPLY TO:

    @TCJUK

    Mathiness: not just a problem of economics, but across science http://t.co/GD9zZjUiLa @paulmromer

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606073461837070336

  • @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Ope

    @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Operational definitions warranty against: error, bias, deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:45:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606381185464455168

  • DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS 1) Have we achieved ide

    DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility?

    5) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting?

    6) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:02:00 UTC