Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Since I can never knowingly speak the truth, all I can do is use every possible

    Since I can never knowingly speak the truth, all I can do is use every possible means of guaranteeing that I speak a falsehood.

    Yes, truthful speech is expensive. So is the damage caused by untrue speech.

    So, if someone will not undertake this effort, nor warranty his speech, then what are we to assume?

    We have options:

    1) he cares not for the damage done (a hazard)

    2) he intends to cause damage (cause harm)

    3) he exports risk because of his failure onto others (theft)

    None of them are good.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 11:29:00 UTC

  • If you can’t calculate it, then it’s just an act of faith. Go look up the list o

    If you can’t calculate it, then it’s just an act of faith. Go look up the list of cognitive biases and show me how you think you’re so much smarter than the next guy? Isn’t it that you’re not? Isn’t it that you just are too ignorant to know better? Anything that you think is in your interests is at some point not in someone else’s. Anything you think is in everyone’s interest is impossible to achieve – because at some point, doing the opposite is in someone else’s interest. And all of us do what is our interest – at all times.

    All Propertarian statements are calculable and decidable. PERIOD.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 10:11:00 UTC

  • POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosopher

    POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers.

    Dragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism.

    For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits.

    THE FORMULA

    If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited.

    As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production.

    The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation.

    (pretty cool really)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    de.aristocratia at gmail.com

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 07:00:00 UTC

  • COMPETE WITH TRUTH, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RATES OF REPRODUCTION, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/?p=6032WE COMPETE WITH TRUTH, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RATES OF REPRODUCTION, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (reposted from march, 2013)

    The lesson I am learning from this is that living in a prosperous society is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage – it appears to be a disadvantage.

    Unless you wall out the rest of the world, that is.

    Swiss do it mostly right.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:44:00 UTC

  • LEGITIMACY PROBLEM I MUST DEAL WITH a) the fact that I’m capturing western civil

    LEGITIMACY PROBLEM I MUST DEAL WITH

    a) the fact that I’m capturing western civilization’s dependence upon objective truth telling at high personal cost – heroism: sacrificial contribution to the commons in exchange for status and remembrance.

    b) the fact that I’m doing this to demonstrate the basis for the scope of rights under rule of law necessary for liberty – despite that liberty is a minority desire.

    c) that in doing so I have created a general rule for the analysis of all political systems, and construction of all political systems, under that universal rule of law.

    d) that at the same time I am advocating for my ‘tribe’ – kin selection – or at least that all tribal aristocracies practice kin selection while cooperating, collaborating, working, and allying, with other aristocrats also engaging in kin selection.

    And therefore that the work is suspect.

    Well, of course al political theory is suspect. But that places no limits on Propertarianism, only on aristocratic egalitarianism that is constructed via Propertarianism. And even then, only whether you agree with kin selection (eugenic man) or whether you seek to defeat it (dysgenic man).

    I will have to struggle with this problem a bit I think. Once I have the ability to conduct anti-liar arguments I think I will have done it. There is a general rule hidden in that work that I haven’t found, but I intuit that it’s there.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 05:07:00 UTC

  • THE ADVANTAGE OF LIE-THEORIES (UNTRUTHFUL THEORIES) Lie-theories can accumulate

    THE ADVANTAGE OF LIE-THEORIES (UNTRUTHFUL THEORIES)

    Lie-theories can accumulate references, quotes, citations, recommendations, and advocacy, more cheaply and easily that truthful-theories. And they do.

    It is more advantageous, and cheaper to lie, than to speak the truth. Just as it is more advantageous to commit fraud than it is to trade with the fully informed. just as it is more advantageous to work for the state, than in the market. Just as it is more advantageous to conquer than to trade.

    Free riding is always more advantageous to one party than another. But it is less advantageous to a polity.

    This is why polities matter – without them, morality is not in anyone’s interest. Together, as a polity, morality is in *nearly* everyone’s interest, if not in every single soul’s interest. Conquerors, oligarchs, and their dependents are the ones who benefit least from morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 04:42:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech. I think I may y

    THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech.

    I think I may yet find research value in Internet debate. Because I have experimented with the assumption that I cannot determine whether an individual is dishonest or not, rather than whether we can get away with a statement, but I am still struggling with it.

    How do I change the structure of argument so that the presumption is one of deception and error rather than one of error ant the possibility of truth? How do I raise the requirement for moral speech such that immoral speech is not possible.?

    The vulnerability in modern discourse is that it relies on western medieval assumptions that both parties are honest or at least honest even if they are vectors for lies.

    We evolved debate by putting away our weapons and our status during the debate. Under the assumption once we exited the debate a dishonest man might be killed.

    Meaning: He must warranty his words with his life.

    We slowly converted this behavior into a softer norm. But the duel persisted until recently – and it appears to have had severe consequences.

    The cosmopolitans and the Germans revoked this constraint.

    And the cosmopolitan virus of deception was successful only because of it : we retain the softer norm, but eliminated the warranty.

    The cosmopolitans violate the softer norm with impunity. And the consequence is the loss of the norm of truth telling that we developed over more than 5,000 years.

    This was only possible because we valued the technical knowledge distributed by printing so highly that we have speech a little license.

    Then when the new cheaper media hit, it was no longer possible for an individual to hold a speaker accountable for his words.

    They then user new media to saturate – overload – us with lies.

    Thus turning out altruism and trust from a strength to a vulnerability.

    How do I conduct arguments that force the other to speak truthfully without exiting argument and applying violence?

    How do we restore truth telling unless by treating the normative commons as paid-in capital? (Which it is.)

    I will have to call a lot of people liars to figure that out.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 04:21:00 UTC

  • FACEBOOK: VALUE AND DECLINING VALUE So, FB was of extraordinary value in: – deve

    FACEBOOK: VALUE AND DECLINING VALUE

    So, FB was of extraordinary value in:

    – developing the anti-libertine arguments

    – developing the truth arguments.

    – solving the problem of critical rationalism’s rationalism.

    – forcing me (always) to simplify my arguments.

    But I need to (and I need others with me) to spend more time on the internet blogs soon where the more difficult arguments are conducted. I can’t do it yet, because the business is in too early a stage. But I will feel confident by the spring making that change in investment. Or rather, I will still sketch ideas here, but will spend a little more time writing for the blogs. Conservative and academic blogs are superior to libertarian blogs, whereas on FB libertarian arguments are superior to conservative arguments. This has to do with the distribution of our different talents in the biases.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 10:02:00 UTC

  • THE GREATEST DEBT WE OWE SCIENCE (important piece) The discipline of science fun

    THE GREATEST DEBT WE OWE SCIENCE

    (important piece)

    The discipline of science functions well and we respect it because it is the one in which we lie the least, prefer the least, and are biased toward outcomes the least.

    But then again, the discipline of science merely forces us to tell the truth.

    And we tell the truth in science because in science only truth has value to others.

    The problem is, that in the rest of life, the value of telling the truth to others decreases rapidly.

    There is no ‘ scientific method ‘, only the method of teaching ourselves to speak the truth by speaking truthfully. So the scientific method is misnamed – it is the moral method, which science evolved for its own purposes, precisely because only in science is truth of greater value than deception.

    So it is the result of incentives that science produced the moral method that we mistakenly call the scientific method – but that method is applicable to all human thought speech and action, in all fields of human experience.

    I have been struggling with making the point that the scientific method is consistent – identical -, in all walks of life, in all disciplines, in all matters of our existence – in every discourse and debate. And that there is nothing particularly interesting about science versus technology versus business, versus law = or any other area of life. The moral method remains constant. We may value different inputs and outputs of using this method, but that method remains consistent no matter what aspect of human cooperation we apply it in.

    That is because there is no difference between moral thought speech and action in any other area of life.

    Scientists discovered how to think, speak and act morally.

    Everything else was a consequence of that discovery.

    That is the greatest debt that we owe science.

    TRUTH TELLING MATTERS – And there is but one means of speaking truthfully: operationally.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 03:07:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved fir

    PROPERTARIANISM

    Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved first from John Locke, and then through the American libertarian movement, that attempts to express all ethical, moral, and political questions as consisting of various forms of property that can be voluntarily exchanged. This technique reduces all moral propositions to testable statements: if something is ethical, moral, right and just, then what was exchanged?

    USAGE

    The term is used casually to suggest that all questions of liberty are reducible to a statements of property and its voluntary transfer; then more accurately, that property rights are deontologically constructed necessities of human existence under natural law; and lastly, formally, the term is used to refer to a complete system of philosophy named ‘Propertarianism’ developed by Curt Doolittle for the analysis and criticism of all political moral and ethical questions, whether libertarian or not. (Where complete means that it both answers metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and aesthetic questions and satisfies Owen Flanagan’s test of a sufficient moral psychology.)

    Usage: Propertarianism, (capitalized) for the explicit philosophy; and lower case for ‘propertarian’, which is used to refer to all three senses: “Locke was the first to state a propertarian argument.”

    In grammatically correct usage, one makes a propertarian argument; one ‘is’ a propertarian if he merely holds ideological bias in favor of its use; one relies upon propertarian reasoning if he can make use of it, or one advocates propertarianism in some manner or other; and the name of the formal philosophy is Propertarianism.

    DIFFERENCES FROM LIBERTARIANISM

    Apples and oranges: Propertarianism is a logical system for the rational comparison of human moral propositions across all possible moral codes. Libertarianism is an ideological system of thought for the purpose of either obtaining political power, denying others political power, or bringing about a particular social and ethical system.

    So while libertarianism may make use of Propertarianism and propertarian reasoning, because perhaps it best suits libertarian preferences, and because it evolved out of the libertarian movement, Propertarianism is a system of logical analysis of human cooperation, and not an advocacy of any particular political bias. It is just as easy to construct conservative and progressive arguments using Propertarianism as it is libertarian. It’s just that propertarianism, as a method of argument, makes it extremely difficult to ‘cheat’ and deceive others (or mislead yourself) when conducting a political argument or negotiation.

    To the contrary, Doolittle uses Propertarianism to specifically criticize those libertarians who attempt to escape paying for the behavioral costs that make a libertarian society under the rule of law possible. Instead Doolittle argues that conservatives are more right than other groups in their moral preferences, they merely haven’t developed a rational language for discussion of their ideas, advocacy of their ideas, or, most importantly, the reformation of their ideas when we obtain sufficient knowledge via science to reform those ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:44:00 UTC