To Peter Boettke on Hayek And Mises' Failures


[I] have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism.

Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism.

Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology.

Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it.

He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises.

The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the other disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics.

The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical.

I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth.

This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth.

Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.


"Curt, What Is Your Stance On IP?"

QUESTION: “Hello Curt. What’s your stance on IP especially taking Kinsella’s arguments into account?” (Derogatory reference to Kinsella’s personality edited out. – Ed.)

[I]n the abstract I agree with the principle that easily accessible licenses for limited monopolies are not beneficial for consumers. However, that rational argument may or may not mean much in practice.

1) IP does appear to rapidly affect business willingness to invest. So, just like property rights exclude people from commons to facilitate the willingness to take risks, IP excludes people from opportunities in order to facilitate the willingness of individuals to take risks. So empirically speaking and rationally speaking, these are trade-off questions not matters of truth and falsehood.

2) Humans don’t like free riding and we intuitively dislike direct copying – seeing it as a case of free riding. I think the question is limited to whether you’re fooling someone or not (trademarking). So as long as you’re not violating a trademark, which is a question of ‘weights and measures’, (fraud), then I think it’s hard to argue against copying anything at all. The test is pretty empirically simple – if you can glance at something for two seconds and tell the original from the copy, then it’s not a trademark violation. If you can then it is. It’s a pretty simple test. We have proven it over and over again.

3) For licensed monopolies, I think it is entirely moral to appeal to the ‘people’ asking for a limited monopoly to produce a good that the market cannot reliably produce. This tends kind of thing tends to be limited to very specific goods (health and medicine) or expensive original research in physical sciences, or high risk investments with high benefit to the commons (transportation and infrastructure). All that occurs is that private investment takes risk and reward, with some lottery bonus from the commons, that if they succeed they will recover their costs free of predation from others. Again, this is a purely pragmatic thing. And as long as such things are put out to ‘bid’, so that whomever wins gets the benefit, then I think it’s just a rational choice to get individuals do off book research and development on behalf of the commons in exchange for winning a lottery if they succeed.

However I see these licenses as exceptions on the same level as laws, not grants to be easily obtained without serious discretion.

4) My problem with the rothbardian (ghetto) ethic is that it’s advocating free riding on the work of others, and NOT a matter of competition if you did not conduct the research yourself. Competition is not free riding, since you are doing a better job of voluntarily organizing production and satisfying customers. However, benefitting from someone else’s research and development and capturing the rewards for it is simply free riding.

Again, I see the Rothbardian ethic as simply an obscurantist set of arguments meant to justify parasitism rather than enforcing the fundamental requirement for rational cooperation: that we all contribute to production without parasitism upon others.

Humans punish cheaters. The only way to increase the velocity of production and trade is to increase trust, and the way to increase trust is to suppress all free riding so that every individual is forced to participate in production, rather than engage in parasitism.

Rothbardianism is simply a complex, overloaded, obscurant argument meant to justify ghetto parasitism. It is irrational to choose a stateless polity with low trust and persistent retribution over a stateful polity with low trust and high suppression of retribution. This is why people demand the state: to suppress immoral and unethical people such as rothbardians, so that a high trust society can develop.

An anarchic or private polity will only be possible to form under a high trust society that prohibits all free riding with the exception of kin.

Curt Doolittle

PS: I’m sure this will generate nonsense but I’m pretty sure my argument is rock solid. Just how it is. Rothbardians need to get over it.


Science Vs Belief – Institutions Of Law Vs Religions And Cults

[Y]eah…. I don’t make “should” or “belief” arguments. Sorry. If you wanna make people believe something, start a religion or cult like Rothbard did. If you want to create a stateless, private or anarchic polity, then you have to eliminate rational demand for the services provided by the state. To do that requires a high trust society. And the evidence is universally in my favor that it does. So the burden on the lunatic fringe, is to demonstrate that people will rationally join a low trust polity in the absence of strong central authority that suppresses retribution for unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. Because human beings demonstrate that they will commit acts of violence in retribution for unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions, just like they will for criminal actions.

Just how it is.


It All Begins With Warfare


[I] really want the history of economics to hold the social science’s intellectual high ground. But the fact of the matter is, that after consuming most of intellectual history, in hundreds of books, the most important book on social science that I have ever read remains The History of Warfare by Keegan. It is a work of insight, depth and scholarship that none of the religious, social, political or economic historians have come close to matching.

We live our warfare first. That is the foundation of our civilizations. Everything else rests upon it – and more importantly, everything else depends upon it.

Our ability to deny others control over geography, determines our ability to construct institutions, which determines our ability to accumulate capital.

All property is constructed after all, from the ability to deny others use of that which we claim a monopoly of control over.

All prosperity depends upon the formation of property rights. And all property rights depend on the organized application of violence.


Demand For Authority : Suppressing Retribution For Anti-Social, Unethical, and Immoral Actions

(and it’s genocidal)

[T]he purpose of an investigatory police, is to concentrate knowledge of troublesome individuals and groups into the hands of specialists. So that crime can be investigated and reduced if not eliminated, by the suppression of, control of, and elimination of troublesome individuals and groups.

We require, an investigatory police force, in the case of anonymous crimes, we cannot all of us possess such intimate knowledge of the minority who engage in career criminality.

The more immoral the society, the more unethical the society, the more anti-social a society, the more need for various kinds of police to suppress retaliation against those who we KNOW, who are NOT anonymous, and who have committed anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

When we cannot use the courts to sue for restitution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, the state must suppress our retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

The state currently punishes retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions – whereas in history, the job of all men, was to punish violations of anti-social, unethical, and immoral norms.

[S]o instead, the state has LICENSED AND ADVOCATED anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, by forbidding and punishing retribution for, and suppression of, anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

The state is the manufacturer of anti-social, unethical and immoral action.


In America, it is the conquest of conservative protestantism (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

In Britain it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

In Europe is is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

In Canada it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples (the french, and now the immigrants).

In Russia they are trying to prohibit the conquest of their low trust people, by even lower trust peoples.


We are being colonized so that statists can free ride, and the lower classes can live off the productivity of the middle classes and prevent the middle classes from breeding in sufficient numbers to retain their economic competitiveness and their high trust norms.

If colonialism was immoral then surely reverse colonialism is immoral.

It is certainly genocide.


Why Aren't Educations Warrantied?


[T]he state gives the universities protection from suits. For selling non-performing products. (But then, the government is a monopoly that forces us to buy its services too.)

Q: “Should a college education be offered to all people or to just a certain group of people?”

“Should” is an interesting question.
“College Education” is a loose term.
“Offered” is a questionable term.
The data suggest we send way too many people to college and way too few people to apprenticeship programs.

Just statistically speaking, if it takes a 110-115 IQ to complete liberal arts education that means that we should be only educating `10-20% of the population and the rest should get vocational training rather than liberal arts training.

Now that said, if colleges and universities had to warrantee their products, rather than sell non performing products, say, by getting x% of your payroll for 30 years, then we could drop tuition fees altogether, loans altogether, and let universities borrow to cover float (receiveables) themselves.

This would rapidly change the university system from just another parasitic quasi-governmental bureaucracy, to a market driven organization.

University costs and administrative costs would plummet, and courses woukd be outcome oriented.

This is the best idea for solving the problem of parasitic but useless university degrees.

We know now that we learn nothing at university if value. All they do is sort and filter the population.


"We Must Develop Political Institutions For The People We Have, Not Those We Wish We Had"


“Observation of individual men would never have led to the formulation of the static conceptions upon which the democratic edifice is founded, such as justice, equality, fraternity, order. These are based not on the traits of living men but upon schemes for the aggrandizement of mere thought-creations – “humanity”- “mankind.” Indeed the “characteristics of men” – are something to be explained away, something to be overcome in the interests of “mankind.””

– Dora Marsden