General Advocacy · Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism · Uncategorized

Chasing Down ‘Libertarian’ Smells


Matt Mitchell
—“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—

Curt Doolittle
Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think.

But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances.

So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs).

So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument.

Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them.

The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight?

Rule of law.

So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible.


Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad.

“Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.

Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism

Rothbardian Libertarians: Common Property Marxists

(from elsewhere)

Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.

If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.

The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.

To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.

Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.

This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).

(I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)

Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.

The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.

As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.

Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.

There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism · Uncategorized

Would Libertarianism Exist Without Marx?

—“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart

(a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories.

(b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone.

The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again.

But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication.

Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons.

Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism · Uncategorized

Refutation of a Criticism (sigh)

Some Nitwit (“ancap_outlaw”) attempts to ‘refute’ me here.


Do you understand how much of a waste of my time it is to counter this kind of sophomoric drivel? How it’s a moral imperative that I don’t fail to pick up the mess you’re making in the informational commons? How you are forcing me to bear a cost by making assertions rather than asking questions? How you are aggressing against me and the commons in order to preserve your malinvestment in a cult-of-fallacies? How the combination of imposing a cost, forcing me to bear an immoral cost against my will, rather than asking for a moral exchange and bearing a cost willfully?

Before I address this rather tiresome post, here is the last ‘libertarian’ that I ‘corrected’:

Here are the five general arguments I use as the Anti-Rothbardian Canon:

Here is the correction of Mises (Rothbard, Hoppe’s) pseudoscience of Praxeology

Correcting the Libertine Fraudulent History of Man’s Oppression: Man was Domesticated.

Here is an overview of Propertarianism:
Starting with this statement to counter the ‘wishful thinking’ deceit:

– If people would just act like the communists wanted communism would work. If people would just act like libertarians wanted, the libertarianism would work. But people don’t act like communists want, or like libertarians want. They act in their own interests like the conservatives say they will. Meaning that communists want a free ride on personal productivity, and libertarians want a free ride on the investments others make in the commons, and only conservatives prohibit parasitism upon both private and common assets, and instead create institutions that one must contribute to in order to benefit from the commons. We cannot make people who will fit the government we want, we must make the government we need to fit the people that we have. There is no difference between libertarian parasitism on the commons and communist parasitism on production.

–“I will debunk”–
Extremely unlikely. Which we will see ….

—“Here Doolittle uses his first of many logical fallacies, in this instance the Strawman. Rothbards beliefs were technically cosmopolitan in that everyone has equal opportunity given they do not aggress upon others, however we find that in reality it is only as cosmopolitan as the people let it be.”—

Cosmopolitanism: (a) The Jewish Enlightenment (reaction to empiricism). The cosmopolitan enlightenmnet consisted of ii) the early working class: Boazian Anthropology, Marx(marxism/communism/socialism) Economics and Sociology, Misesian Praxeology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian Mathematical Platonism, Frankfurt School Aesthetics,, iii) the later merchant class Randian/Rothbardian Liberarianism, iiii) the later martial class Straussian Conservatism.

Just as empiricism is a restatement of english sovereign contractual ethics, just as french rationalism is a restatement of catholic maternal hierarchical ethics, just as kantian rationalism a statement german hierarchical duty ethics, Cosmopolitanism was a restatement of Jewish conflationary (legal/religious/double-standard) SEPARATIST ethics.

Just as english make excuses by the presumption that everyone of good character can adopt aristocratic ethics (contractualism), and just as the french used Rousseau’s feminine man-in-a-state-of-nature using moral language, and just as germans use accurate assumptions of man, but simply tried to restate christianity in rationalist terms, the Cosmopolitans used ‘Pilpul’, Dual Ethics, Dual ethical law, and what marx called ‘dialectical’ ( excuse making) but which means ‘not objectively or scientifically decidable’ (true), all of which had been practiced under centuries of interpreting jewish law hermeneutically (making excuses).

So when I say Rothbard is a cosmopolitan I mean that he is attempting to justify Separatism (parasitism upon the commons), by means of telling half truths(incomplete definitions, statements, and arguments), that provoke substitution (suggestion) allowing the user to interpret the statements however he wants, and therefore agreeing with that half truth while substituting the other half of the content himself. Thereby agreeing with himself, not with the statement made. Hence the reason there is so much debate in libertarianism – because all the meaningful questions are open to suggestion and substitution. (There is a reason judges would not accept jewish testimony in court – like muslims, lying to others in the service of the jewish tribe or muslim cult is heroic.)

The most aggregious of Rothbard’s use of the deception of suggestion is the NAP. But the NAP is a half truth. We can all agree not to aggress, but agree not to aggress upon what? Hence each of us makes excuses for ourselves, while we agree on what is obvious, but meaningless: aggression.

Yet this is not true in western european law. You cannot aggress against that which others have invested in, no matter how they invested in it because the purpose of the law is not to make excuses for separatism (different ethical and parasitic judgements) but because westerners sought to eliminate retaliation cycles between clans – because for almost all of history, fathers, brothers, and cousins ‘insured’ each other against imposition by other clans.

That is not true for jewish law which has one standard for ingroup members and another for outgroup members.

—“I refer a confused reader to Hoppe, who brilliantly showed how Rothbardian Anarchism can be quite efficiently discriminatory. I find no logical correlation between the term ‘libertine’ and Ancap, Doolittle never elaborated. He also never says where he gets the idea of Libertarian meaning submitting to rule of law, unless he means natural law, which I would agree with.”—

Yes, natural law of non imposition against that which others have born costs to obtain an interest whether monopoly(private property), fractional share(shares), or equalitarian share (commons)
Regarding norms:
Libertine = does not pay the cost of the (costly) adherence to norms, thereby providing incentive to others not to pay the costs of (costly) adherence to norms. Where norms constitute an economy of signals out of which we message and measure trustworthiness. “what can I get away with?”

Libertarian = pays the cost of norms thereby providing incentive others to pay the costs of adherence to norms. “What can I do to contribute to and signal contribution to, the commons?”

This difference explains both the incomplete “NAP” Fallacy under which the listener substitutes his moral biases, and the use of intersubjectively verifiable property as the scope of property under law. Where law constitutes the forms of property insured by the polity as a means of preventing retaliation and assisting in cooperation. So we see Rothbardianism as nothing more than an excuse to free ride on the commons, and leave open the possibility of all sorts of informationally asymmetric schemes (deceits).
Retaliation is determined by the person who claims the injury, not the injurer. So you do not determine the property rights of another. He does. If you differ, that’s why the state evolves.

—“Voluntarism literally stems from the Non-Aggression principle, which is a moral foundation for society. A man would be expected to respect other nonviolent individuals. I see no need to elaborate further on this misconception.”—

Notice the ‘fuzzy’ excuse-making language ‘x stems from y’ : “because I declare x I can make the excuse y.” Verus “because x exists and we cannot change it, y is necessary to obtain z.”

The intuitive moral instinct to both assist in cooperation (buy options), and punish cheaters (free riders, parasites) even at high cost to the self, evolved to preserve the in-group incentive to cooperate and avoid free riding.

The normative institution of property in toto evolved to limit conflict over possessions (that which others have expended resources to obtain an interest in – either a monopoly (possession) or a partial interest (share), or equal interest (commons). In particular because those impositions ingroup resort in retaliation cycles.

The formal institution of property rights evolved to document which interests that the polity would insure against the imposition of costs. The purpose of documenting them was to homogenize definitions and punishments across clans so that we could reduce or eliminate retaliation cycles.

—“Doolittle then goes on and on about normative, cultural, institutional, monumental, and genetic capital. These are concepts moreso than tangible objects. If everyone went around defending random arbitrary ideas they hold dear, we would be in a state of constant war with each other.”—

(a) but people DO pay for those things by forgone opportunity (just as property is created by continuous payments of forgone opportunity). People DO pay time and effort costs (rituals and festivals). People DO pay the material cost of institutions and monuments. And, most importantly, (b) people DO retaliate against impositions against the costs that they have paid. So people DO enact legislation that prohibits aggressors against their capital stock. (c) people DON”T get into conflict over norms, institutions, and monuments except when immigration causes competition for signals and increases demand for the authoritarian state.

  • The purpose of moral intuitions is to prohibit us from imposing costs on the expenditures of others. Unfortunately our reproductive strategies differ so our intuitions vary. Marriage solved most of this.
  • The purpose of moral norms is to standardize ingroup differences in moral intuitions.
  • The purpose of legislative morals is to standardize punishments across different ingroups.



People retaliate against blackmail even at high cost to themselves because it violates:

(a) the requirement for PRODUCTIVE exchange,
(b) the requirement for non-abridgement of trust.
(c) the abridgment of the common requirement (in other words you can turn someone in, but you cannot turn them in after blackmailing them for it.

People do many things in order to permit or deny others access to the benefits of their polity (numbers).
So you an make excuses (Justify) why you think they shouldn’t retaliate, but the fact that they want to retaliate is enough to falsify your statement. If they want to retaliate it generates demand for authority to prevent retaliation OR greater scope of the law.

—-Yes and its easy to see how badly the ones who wished to utilize a state turned out.—-
You mean how marx’s ethics killed 100M people, by the same method of argument Rothbard uses?

—“ghetto ethics” (or Bazaar Ethics)”—

The ethics of diasporic or ghetto dwellers (low trust polylogical), rather than martial(warrior) land holders(high trust monological). Those who do not construct territorial commons and those that do construct territorial commons. It is what it is. Gypsies use petty theft, jews used parasitism upon the commons. It is what it is. I call it what it is” a low trust ethics of diasporic or unlanded people which we see in the ghetto.

—“The state is the single largest and most effective parasite to mankind and high trust transactions. The state DOES do to others what its subjects are forbidden to do in return.”—

(a) a monopoly military is necessary
(b) a monopoly of natural, common, judge discovered law is …
(c) a monopoly production of commons is not …. a market for commons is ….
(d) holding territory requires commons. (negative commons)
(e) creating property rights requires commons (negative commons)
(f) competing for people and income requires commons as multipliers (positive commons)
(g) not producing commons
—“If you say this as a framework for a nations enforced laws, I’ve got news for you Mr. Doolittle, you would be doing little to achieve a high trust society.”—

Funny because in both the ancient and modern worlds it produced the only existing conditions of liberty in human history.

Please see this graph and explanation of Incremental Suppression under the Natural, judge discovered, common law as the means by which a condition of liberty is constructed by the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs.

It is precisely the means of constructing fully decidable law across individual and group differences.

It is the ONLY necessary basis for law.

The Graph Illustrating Incremental Suppression

(organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding).

1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.
8) Community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.

Aristocracy, Egalitarianism, morality, Nomocracy, meritocracy, Science, and eugenic evolution are mutually dependent.

The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.

Only the west succeeded in developing truth.

And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.

Truth matters above all else.

Pseudoscience is just babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes.

This emperor is naked also.

Truth is enough to rescue the west.

Definitions · Pseudo-Economics (Austrian) · Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism · Uncategorized

Q&A: Curt: What Do You Think Of Austrian Arguments Regarding Apriorism Vs Empiricism?

(very very very important post)

Well we can clarify what these terms CAN mean, by stating them analytically and operationally:

Apriorism: Given parsimonious enough premises (assertions), one can form hypotheses via free association, abduction, induction, or loose deduction, and some of these hypotheses will be either impossible or extremely difficult to imagine can be false.

Argument-to-apriorism relies upon cognitive testing alone – and primarily non-contradiction. And we call this form of argument ‘justification’, meaning ‘here is why I think this’, and if we are lucky, ‘here is why this can’t be false’.

Empiricism: Given any hypothesis we construct by free association, by whatever means, and given the human tendency for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit, we must record our observations as some form of constant measurement (correspondence) such that we can use them to attempt to eliminate the human tendency for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience and deceit.

How we use apriorism: for creating rules of thumb inexpensively and thereby eliminating the cost of expensive testing.

How we use empiricism: to collect information that exceeds our ability to perceive, and reduce it to constant measures (correspondence) so that we can both test our sense perception, and expand our sense perception, and thereby invent new hypothesis, theories, and law. So empiricism extends the perception of our imaginings and can be used to determine if they survive negative testing (criticism).

How we use praxeology: In matters of the social sciences, if we cannot explain empirically observed phenomenon as the consequence of a sequence of rational actions given the knowledge at the actors’ disposal, then we know it cannot be true. Whereas if we can construct a sequence of rational actions that explain the incentives we know it may be possible. True (perfectly parsimonious causality) and possible (what we call ‘proofs’) differ in that true statements provide us with causal identity, and proof provides us with possibility if not identity.

Unlike human actions, we cannot yet test the first principles of the physical universe other than by what we call determinism or the laws of thermodynamics in their various forms. This is why mathematics helps us. Because the universe is perfectly parsimonious and so is mathematics so while we may now know how to construct the universe from first principles like we do social phenomenon, we can still eliminate candidates that do not ‘balance’ (deterministically.)

So there is one possible epistemological method available to man: free association, hypothesis, theory, and law. But it is not the justification of (means of arriving at) our assertions that provide the truth content – it is the ability of these assertions to survive attempts at falsification. It is not apriorism that provides truth content, but the fact that however, we arrive at such a hypothesis, that we cannot refute it. It is not the empirical measurement of events and the hypotheses we draw from these measurements of events, but the fact that the hypothesis that we draw from these measurements of events survives attempts to falsify it. And this is in fact how the human mind(brain) works: search for a pattern, then see if it survives the search for anti-patterns.

The reasons ‘Austrians’ (that are not Austrians in the slightest – they’re Poles and Ukrainians and Jews from regions under Austro-Hungarian Rule, polish rule, Lithuanian rule, and Russian rule at some different points in history) are able to make their nonsense arguments is by creating straw men out of empiricism and positivism, by casting the ‘negative criticism’ of empiricism as a competitor to the ‘positive construction’ of justificationism. Yet justificationism does not provide us with truth propositions, only hypotheses, and it is our rational testing of these hypotheses that tells us they are truth candidates. And in some reductio cases, that they cannot be otherwise.

And the reason that even non-stupid people are fooled by this “bullshit” ‘polish-Ukrainian-Jewish’ pseudoscience, is because while they know how moral and legal actions are justified – they do it every day and instinctually, they do not know how science is actually practiced: as a warranty of due diligence. Or how math is actually practiced: as a warranty of possibility. Neither science or mathematics makes truth claims. Science makes claims of falsification (we cannot figure out how to make this false), and Mathematics makes claims of proof: (we can prove that this statement is possible to construct by this sequence of mathematical operations.)

Now we easily see where this pseudoscience came from: a long history of scriptural law that had to be taken as ‘right’ in order to preserve group cohesion (or more accurately, suppressing defections). Scripture, Law, and Morality are constructed on justificationary operations because scriptural, legal, and moral contracts are constructed on justificationary operations: “I can do this because it these rules say I can do this for these reasons”. Or the more primitive way-finding that humans use ” you make this occur by following this recipe”, “you arrive at this destination by following these directions”, or even more primitively “this sequence of actions got me fed last time, and so I will repeat it as a conservation of energy”. But truth is an expensive search process while justification is a cheap one. It is natural that we would do what we were familiar with, and what was cheap, and what preserved in-group loyalty (suppression of defection),

We can say the difference between justificationism/construction and criticism/survival simply as ‘justificationism (or apriorism) is an excuse for why I say something, and survival from criticism is evidence that I cannot find anything better to say’.

Mises (and his far less intellectually sophisticated yet far more prolific follower Rothbard) construct an elaborate straw man arguing against a framework that does not exist and is not practiced. They do not come from a scientific tradition but from a religio-legal tradition. Not from an empirical tradition but from a scriptural contractual tradition. not from a martial tradition where error is unforgiving and results in death but from a religio-contractual tradition where error presents opportunity for exploitation.

Apriorism provides a means of generalizing and hypothesizing. Praxeology and empiricism provide means of criticizing – and through that criticism generating new hypotheses from the new knowledge gained. The fact that we may discover useful theories by common sense does not differ whether we use measurements or not.

Science consists of a series of operations under which we guaranty that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit from our assertions. It provides us with a warranty of due diligence. And why is that so important? Because the only existentially possible ‘truth proposition’ is your promise that you have performed due diligence before making your testimony. All other ‘truth’ propositions are not, in fact, true, but only true by loose analogy for the purpose of attempting to attribute equal status to imaginings that have not been subject to the same due diligence as those that have been subject to due diligence.

So just as we call regulation and legislation ‘law’, to grant them the status of natural law (judge discovered law, that prohibits the imposition of costs upon the property-in-toto of others), we call many things ‘true’ that are only loosely categorically usable for similar purposes.

Whenever you make an assertion you are implicitly prefixing it with: ‘I promise that I have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit and that my testimony will as perfectly correspond to your perceptions, if you make the same observations’ (where observations is meant in the widest possible sense: experiences. We only make the explicit declaration of a premise or conclusion because the implicit is a normative habit and unstated. Why? Because this normative habit is the only possible condition under which I can make a truth claim without engaging in falsehood.

Truth consists in survival. Truthfulness consists in the warranty of due diligence. Honesty in a promise only of non-deception via any possible means – from under-reporting to suggestion, to obscurantism, to pseudoscientific dependence, to constructive deceptions (alternative narratives).

The tests of due diligence are:
– Categorical Consistency (Identity)
– Internal Consistency (logical)
– External Consistency (correspondence)
– Existential Consistency (existentially possible)
– Moral Consistency (accordance with Natural Law of non-imposition)
– Scope Consistency: (limits, parsimony, and full accounting)

It is hard for humans today to understand that Mises was very close when he stated that operational construction of economic phenomenon was possible, just operational construction was in mathematics. But he did not understand Popper and Hayek’s insights that the information content of axiomatic (mathematic) systems is always finite, deterministic, and closed, and the information content of correspondent (theoretical) systems is always infinite. Meaning that while we can claim mathematical deductions are true because we are always dealing with tautologies, we cannot claim deductions in reality (theoretical systems) are more than hypothesis.

Mises was close but he was wrong. Rothbard made it worse. Hoppe tried to correct it, and got us most of the way there. I’ve completed the research program by converting the insights of Jewish Pseudoscience, German Rationalism, Anglo Empiricism, into a fully scientific unified social science. In this sense I consider the anarchic program complete and that we have collectively *through our errors and corrections of each other* finally produced the social science that the thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries failed to do.

Science, philosophy, morality, economics, politics and law all can be stated using the same language of Propertarianism and tested for survival against Testimonialism (warranties of due diligence). And that we have constructed social science despite Mises, Rothbard’s, Hoppe’s errors – errors that every culture brings to the table and cannot escape bringing to the table. Finally. Even if we did it 100 years too late to save us from the Keynesian conversion of Marxism into anglo empirical pseudoscience.

That said, you basically have to throw all justificationism of mises, Rothbard and Hoppe out the window, and merely thank Mises for discovery of economic operationalism, Rothbard for expanding locke’s property into a nearly complete system of objective ethics, and Hoppe for ending our dependence upon – or faith in- the possibility of the non-parasitic monopoly construction of commons.

I am merely lucky enough to be born in the next generation and raised both in the absence of rationalism, with full dependence upon science, and where computer science and the concept of ‘computability’ or what in human action would refer to existential possibility.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

1) The term pseudoscience requires only that one claim something either scientific or true without applying the scientific method or demonstrating warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

2) The Jewish enlightenment arrived last after the anglo, french, german, German, and they are just the most recent we are dealing with, and while we are in the process of defeating them, we are overlapping with the Muslim counter-enlightenment that uses the same strategies as the Jewish counter-enlightenment: authoritarianism in an effort to universalize their group strategy rather than be positioned as low status group meritocratically against more developed (correspondent) civilizations.

3) the anglo revolution ended with the Glorious Revolution. The American with the American Revolution. The French with the French Revolution and Napoleon’s defeat. The german with the unification and eventual world wars. The Jewish with the Bolshevik and then their transplantation to America. And is ending with the defeat of the Jewish pseudosciences (Boaz, Freud, Marx, Keynes) by anglo empiricism (cognitive science).

3) the Jewish enlightenment may have peaked with Bolshevism, but the consequential adaptive progression from Marxism-Bolshevism-Scientific socialism, Trotskyism-Conservatism-Neoconservatism, Critical theory – Postmodernism – Political Correctness, and Objectivism-Libertinism-Ancapism, is far more diverse an attack on western civilization than anglo egalitarian empiricism, American egalitarian legalism, french equalitarian moralism, and german rationalist duty.

The diversity and fervency of Jewish attacks on western civilization were made possible in most part by the coincidence between the Jewish enlightenment and the industrial revolution that provided the incentive, and the development of mass media and the increase in wealth that made the underclasses desirous of taking advantage of the opportunity for genetic expression. So many things assisted the Jewish enlightenment that were not available to the anglo, french, and especially german, to anywhere near the same degree.

While we are in the process of defeating Jewish pseudoscience, Once we defeat the Muslims and their militant mysticism, only then will the enlightenment be complete.

Anti-Philosophy · Pseudo-Economics (Austrian) · Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism · Uncategorized

The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism

(read it and weep) 😉

1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them.
2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons.
3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons.
4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions.
5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions.
6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions.
7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions.

1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed).

2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification).

3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’.

4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions:
i) categorical consistency (identity consistency)
ii) logical consistency (internal consistency)
iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence)
iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence)
v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal)
vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency)

5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high.

1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions.
– economics is a scientific, not logical discipline.
– the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.)

1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,)

Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere).

2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable).

3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions.

4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups.

5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment).

6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both.

So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance.

i) Categorical and Logical (mental)
ii) Operational and Existential (physical)
iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine