ARE NORMS ARBITRARY AND DIALECTICAL OR OBSCURANT BUT PROPERTARIAN? (PLUS NOTES O

ARE NORMS ARBITRARY AND DIALECTICAL OR OBSCURANT BUT PROPERTARIAN? (PLUS NOTES ON OUR MOVEMENT)

( Riffing off Rod Long, not criticizing. OK? )

Long: “…the meanings of normatively loaded concepts stand in reciprocal determination.”

This is correct. It’s the answer to most false moral dilemmas, that are conveniently bandied about in pop philosophy as meaningful arguments. However, I want to use that as a jumping off point:

Doolittle: Norms are most generally statements of property rights, obscured by complexity and loading.

“A Dialectic? A Competition? Or obscurity due to complexity, but reflective of consistent rules? Arguments in favor of Dialectical processes are, I think, excuses for failure to understand causal properties on one hand or deceptions on the other. Competitions are logical and necessary reactions to changes; particularly innovation. Obscurity and complexity simply overwhelm reason, but I suspect not intuition. Intuition on norms, is quite simple: what we call property. Albeit, that the human intuition’s definition of property is ‘that which I act to demonstrate is property, and anticipate its persistence as property’. ie: norms are generally reducible to statements of property rights. This distinguishes normatively loaded concepts from normative rules.”

Libertarians :

– Hoppe (Rational libertarianism – Institutions of Political Economy.)

– Kinsella (Moral libertarianism in the Rothbardian model.)

– Long (intellectual historian and master of argument.)

– De Witt ( analysis and presentation)

– Doolittle (ratio-scientific propertarianism)

– Hopf (critical rationalism)

– Stewart ( Library. Research. Editor. our ‘David Gordon’ )

The Dark Enlightenment: (Most of whom are involuntary members in the rebellion against the errors of the enlightenment, both anglo and french.)

See: http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

– Jayman (statistics, behavior and genetics)

– iSteve (norms and genes produce materially different biases and outcomes that are not voluntarily open to adoption except at the margins. And therefore political heterogeneity is impossible without conquest.)

– Emmanuel Todd, Avner Grief, et al. via HBD Chick (Marriage and Morality)

– Ricardo Duchesne: historical origins of western culture, genetics and thought.

– Stephan Hicks : against obscurant anti-rationalism in politics and philosophy.

– MacDonald: against critique over invention.

– IQ (legions)

– Ridley (male and female relations)

– Keegan and VDHanson on War and Conflict.

– Haidt – political morality

– And of course, Mencius is in there somewhere.

Conservatives write better books. 🙂

(I don’t take papers seriously until I see books. Papers and articles are patents and advertising for intellectuals. Books are products testable in the marketplace of ideas. Books are open to criticism, and application in the market of ideas. And the evidence is that the ‘paper and journal’ economy is of little value compared to the ‘book’ economy of ideas.)

Libertarians place more influence on rules of law and trade than we do on family, formal institutions and norms. Conservatives place more influence on family, genes, institutions, and norms. But the truth is the combination of the two is necessary. Libertarianism without conservatism is an untenable philosophy. Because we are not infinitely fungible creatures.

SETTLED AND UNSETTLED MATTERS

1) I consider the heritability of IQ settled science. As well as the impact of IQ on the means of education and the degree of repetition by imitation, as well as placing a limit on concepts that can be held.

2) I believe the Nature vs Nurture argument will be solved this decade, the only question being whether it’s a 60-40 or 80-20 argument. And I am fairly sure it’s 80-20.

3) I consider the Diversity argument settled science, if for signaling purposes only, regardless of differences in intelligence, race (appearance), culture, and reproductive marital structure. I think these differences will confirm and harden the signaling, not alter it. Even if signaling is just the ‘language’ of those differences.

4) I consider the criticisms of universal democracy a settled matter both empirically and rationally. Democracy is just a slow road to tyrannical communism because of our material differences.

5) I consider the question of scale settled science, and that the only valuable function of scale is insurance (in all aspects), and that the swiss model is the only possible model for liberty and libertarian communities.

6) I consider propertarianism the ‘Fourth Reason’ (Reason and logic: instrumentation of thought, Numbers and Mathematics: instrumentation of relations, Physics: instrumentation of causes. Propertarianism or ‘property’: Instrumentation of Cooperation.)

Cheers