Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • I’M SURE PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS KNOW THIS BUT… Does anyone actually READ the p

    I’M SURE PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS KNOW THIS BUT…

    Does anyone actually READ the papers and books that they cite?

    (Exasperated.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-22 10:25:00 UTC

  • PAINFUL TRUTH. IT’S NOT RACISM. IT’S REALITY

    PAINFUL TRUTH. IT’S NOT RACISM. IT’S REALITY.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-20 23:27:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY (From a posting I made els

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    (From a posting I made elsewhere)

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times. Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth.

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will refrain from self benefit, at a cost to others through weak argument.

    1. The Problem Of Antiquated Language.

    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property. Because our morals are, universally, statements about property – when property is defined in its natural rather than legal sense. When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity cause by the imprecision of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans. Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception. Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property. And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    2. Morality.

    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally, a normative portfolio of prohibitions on stealing from the commons. Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’. Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons. Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely. However, intellectual honesty requires that we accomodate for these moral differences. Most public

    3. Externalities

    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns. In economics we know much less than economists suggest with their arguments. In part, that’s because of the scientistic error, or the error of positivism: We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way through the world economy – and nothing else. Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted by monetary policy, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These impacts are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. And because these matters are complicated, and impossible to prove mathematically, then even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference for one set of externalities with a truth about economic statements.

    4. So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of more than just avoiding PERSONAL incentives, but moral and political externalities. And as such, an intellectually honest statement must include the following avoidances.

    a) your ignorance vs knowledge

    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning

    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others

    d) your preferences for moral biases.

    e) your preferences for externalities

    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech

    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech. As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-15 07:41:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • RUTHLESS Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the tr

    RUTHLESS

    Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the truth is, it’s not one that you want. It’s like being a mercenary. Everybody wants them when they need them. But you’re uncomfortable if they’re living next door.

    When I married Allora, I made a pledge to stop being ruthless. And, working with my friend Jim, who tempers my rather ruthless tendencies. (Although he is just as ruthless operationally as I am strategically. ) But events and pressures can make dead old habits come back to life.

    But ruthlessness has a natural side effect: loyalty. And I’m loyal.

    Why? Well, the world is chaotic – or more accurately “kaleidic”. And, because the world is kaleidic, and we are possessed of too little information at all times. And because of this paucity of information, we we all need a means of making decisions. Especially when it is almost impossible to make a decision between multiple possible paths that lead to equally beneficial outcomes.

    Now, there are a whole lot of options available to you. Norms, rules, habits, beliefs, myths, superstitions. And most of these means of choosing, are constructed around different ideas of a ‘common good’. Under the theory that you will not be blamed, materially or morally, for making decisions that are made according to those rules.

    Unfortunately, I am only too aware of the fact that the only common good we can ever really know is the respect for property. I certainly don’t agree with the american cultural concept of the ‘common good’. Secondly, I don’t exactly have the emotional portfolio of the average person, so I can’t rely on all sorts of sentiments and habits.

    One sentiment that I both understand and feel strongly is loyalty. This is partly because relationships are a high transaction cost for me – once I find a person good enough to work with I prefer to invest heavily in that person.

    But Loyalty is an emotionally loaded word. In practice it means bearing costs, even if only in the form of opportunity costs, on behalf of others as an investment in a shared objective. We like to think of it emotionally. But as I state elsewhere, all emotions are reactions to changes in state of our property – if property is understood in its broadest sense. And loyalty is the act of making the best use of a large investment in an individual.

    So faced with a Kaleidic universe, and in need of a means of decision making, I make my decisions based upon loyalty. Which is to say on the property I understand and can calculate.

    And, as a rational creature, and a propertarian, it’s actually the only choice available to me. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-06 10:04:00 UTC

  • ON INSPIRATIONS VERSUS SOLUTIONS : THE STRUCTURE OF PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS I gue

    ON INSPIRATIONS VERSUS SOLUTIONS : THE STRUCTURE OF PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS

    I guess, one of the things that I am struck by, is the inspirational content – what I view as religious content – in philosophy.

    Now, I understand why it’s there.

    Essayists. Philosophers. Orators. We all make appeals to restructure the current order of things. The causal relations in our minds. The priority of those relations. The priority of our goals. The institutions formal and informal. The laws that enforce informal institutions.

    All oration, all philosophy, is political. It may be internally political like buddhism, or yoga – which avoid the problem of politics entirely, by providing a means of achieving happiness expressly by ignoring it. It may be overtly political like greek rationalism, economic philosophy, or legal philosophy. But all argumentation is political. Because ‘political’ means “the process of discovery or invention, and consensus upon rules of cooperation for the purpose of concentrating capital on mutually desirable ends.”

    The Argumentation Ethic tells us this. But argumentation is insufficient on its own.

    But, you see, the entire premise of philosophical discourse then, is consent on the use of property.

    And, so, what do we do when consent is impossible because of the irresolvable conflict in preferences and priorities? Such as when the reproductive strategy of one group is in conflict with the reproductive strategy of another?

    Our political systems were developed for homogenous communities. Homogenous agrarian communities. Extended families. Interrelated tribes. Majority rule is a means of obtaining consent on priorities, not on oppositions. At present they are merely the means by which one group attempts to dominate the other groups.

    Conversely, the market is the means by which all of us concentrate capital as we wish toward our desired, but often conflicting ends. We cooperate on means, anonymously and daily, despite our different ends. We help each other achieve our different ends, despite our disagreement upon them.

    The majority rule state cannot solve this problem for us. In fact, it is in polar opposition to the state of world affairs – and in particular the mobile work force and the heterogeneous society where both genders, all classes and multiple tribes, cultures and ethics may share the same system of property rights and the same system of laws and credit.

    The absurdity is evident in the assumption that if we have a bigger economy, why it must be put to narrower ends? Why should the majority be allowed to concentrate what has become extraordinary plenty of capital? IN fact, it certainly looks like the bigger a state is the more credit it can generate, but the less wisely it can make use of it without creating conflict by doing so.

    Why is homogeneity of capital concentration a ‘good’? Why, if this means the assault on one groups preferences by another?

    While we libertarians almost universally deplore the concentration of capital in the state, and we see the state only as a means of providing a resolution of conflict, not the provision of services, that does not mean that market is capable of resolving all conflicts. Of concentrating capital behind all desirable ends.

    Yet, there are reasons that we must have the ability to develop contracts together using an institution similar to the state – government. This reason is not because of some illusory ‘market failure’ (which by definition can’t exist). It exists because the market and competition are ‘sanctioned cheating’. Despite the fact that competition within a group is universally considered ‘cheating’ by human beings, we have trained one another to sanction this one form of ‘cheating’ because it results in higher productivity and lower prices at the cost of having to constantly innovate in response to others who care constantly innovating.

    All humans detest involuntary transfer and will punish it. And unfortunately, the male and female, upper and lower classes require property definitions that are in conflict, if not for preferences, but only for reproductive reasons.

    And what government must do, is create contracts where ‘cheating’ – involuntary transfer whether direct or indirect – is not tolerated.

    Or conversely, it is to sanction, and even enforce, other forms of cheating in order to create redistribution. And people hate this. They hate it twice as much as they like the goods that come from our ability to cooperate in government where cheating is not a sanctioned or preferential good. Unfortunately, for progressives (females) who see the universe as a common, and males, who see the universe as private property, (at least when it isn’t to their advantage with females or power to consider it otherwise), no matter what the other side does, it ‘feels’ like cheating.

    SO our problem is not to determine an optimum means of concentrating capital as the majority prefers – which is always at the conquest of another group. It is to concentrate capital behind the preferences of all, while cooperating upon means if not ends. This is what the market does. It is why the market gives us peace prosperity and cooperation.

    I can’t, in propertarianism, advocate a particular preference. The purpose of propertarian reasoning is not to advocate a preference, its to facilitate the pursuit of preferences in order to avoid conflict. And this is the current problem of politics. The current problem of politics is providing for permanently and irreconcilable heterogeneous goals and preferences. That would allow groups to cooperate on means, if not ends, for the purpose of pursuing different and conflicting ends.

    So, this is why my arguments are not inspirationally structured like Continental, or religious, or even classical liberal, or progressive arguments. It’s because I’m not advocating for one-ness. I’m advocating for diversity of the concentration of capital in pursuit of the preferences of all.

    And Im doing that by offering institutions that would assist us in doing so, rather than a ‘way of thinking’ that I hope will become the dominant means of inspiring people to voluntarily accumulate their effort toward a shared objective.

    That’s ideology. What I do is institutional.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-27 16:41:00 UTC

  • THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there. You know, some

    THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there.

    You know, some day practitioners of the next evolutionary step in philosophy will look at we Post Analytic philosophers the way that we look at Analytic and Continental philosophers today: as well- meaning, and advocating good ideas, but doing so inarticulately because of some content or assumption pervasive in our arguments.

    Dugin’s book tries to express aspirational ideas but he does so with quaint continental language. The problematic content of this language is at least the following:

    1) lack of knowledge of formal institutions and how to use them to establish norms using incentives rather than advocacy. Habits and imitation rather than conscious and rational adoption of any behavior.

    2) Lack of knowledge about economics and the economic impact of certain norms on the economy, and therefore the feedback loop into any ideology and it’s desired norms by the economic outcome produced by norms.

    3) the circularity of any argument that relies upon emotional reactions that are based upon learned values. Versus the dependent arguments that rely upon demonstrated instincts independent of learned systems of values.

    4) the structure of political ideology as religious yet open to voluntary adoption via linguistic argument rather than involuntary institutional incentives.

    The “ten planks” were far more effective than all Marxist rhetoric ever was. And any hope of altering actions must place a cost on an adherent. Certainly consumer capitalism is difficult to choose not to adopt. It’s incentives are constant enough to override our social instincts.

    So while I agree with Daugin and Benoist, that we need a fourth political theory, I suspect it will have to result from scientific arguments, recommended institutions and policy for those institutions to execute. It will certainly require a narrative. But it will not be a narrative constructed of continental and therefore circular, and religious language.

    I’m sure our friends David Gordon or Rod Long could levy superior and more precise criticism. But I can’t. I don’t find it rewarding or useful to master the counter arguments to phlogiston theory.

    This isn’t to say that there arent good ideas in the book. There are. And after the first chapter or two it improves. And for continental writing it’s well written.

    It just not actionableoir desirable.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:24:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOG

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS

    AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOGY

    Um. It’s not complicated:

    1) Academics make more complex errors in logic. Independents tend to not possess sufficient scope of knowledge to render the opinions that they do. So they make more simplistic errors out of ignorance. Most logical errors I find in academic work are due to methodological constraints within a narrow discipline that erroneously attribute causation within that paradigm.

    2) Academic errors are most often driven by accepted political beliefs. Popper and Kuhn’s warning about paradigmiatic traps is a greater problem in economic science than it is in the physical sciences. Independent writers tend to vary more from the accepted paradigm. Thats why they’re interesting. The current problem with academic work is its nearly exclusive reliance on aggregates, and the fact that aggregates reinforce the goals of totalitarian state action.

    3) Academics are more likely to rely upon multiple sources of empirical data, and unfortunately, independents are not. Independents are more likely driven by the desire of something to be true, and to rely upon confirmation biases. Although, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. It’s a natural process of research and development.

    WHY PRAXEOLOGY?

    Praxeology protects against necessary errors of information loss in any process of aggregation. Aggregation exposes limits to praxeological analysis.

    There are plenty of people working with collections of data. There are too few praxeologists working on the interpretation of data. That is because analysis of aggregates hides involuntary transfers, and praxeological analysis exposes involuntary transfers. As such, Praxeology is a libertarian, and Aggregates a totalitarian methodology.

    That’s why there are fewer praxeologists. In academica, it’s against the status quo.

    WHAT WOULD ACADEMIC RESEARCH LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE MAJORITY RULE STATE?

    If the ‘government’ were constructed to allow exchanges, not majority rule, then academics would search for beneficial exchanges between groups rather than optimums that are always for the benefit of one group at the expense of another.

    In other words, solutions proposing an optimum are always “BAD” . Because they deprive us of that which could be mutually beneficial means even if we have independent ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-02 05:49:00 UTC

  • TRUTH AND PROPERTY 1) Property requires we make only true statements in order no

    TRUTH AND PROPERTY

    1) Property requires we make only true statements in order not to create acts of fraud.

    2) The only test of true Statements is warranty.

    3) The only means of issuing warranty is upon informational symmetry.

    Human beings detest involuntary transfers. Any definition of property that permits involuntary transfer is an attempt to sanction theft by fraud. And therefore any definition of property that does not include warranty and symmetry is in fact, an act of fraud.

    Property( Warranty( Symmetry)) = TRUTH.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-19 02:31:00 UTC