THANK YOU -ALL- FOR LETTING ME TEST MY RECENT IDEAS ON YOU AND YOUR PATIENCE 🙂

THANK YOU -ALL- FOR LETTING ME TEST MY RECENT IDEAS ON YOU AND YOUR PATIENCE 🙂

It was necessary. It’s the only way to test ideas that I know of. I just construct arguments. They’re like little robot gladiators. If they succeed we learn, if they fail we learn. But the only way to test your own understanding is to argue your points, and see if they survive.

UNITING FACTIONS

I should, at this point, be able to achieve my goals, and unite the Conservative (normative and moral), Dark Enlightenment (scientific and political) and Anarcho Capitalist (economic and philosophical) movements in a common rational, political and moral language.

Each group is ‘right’ about something and ‘wrong’ about other things. This is because each group gives greater weight to some social properties and less to others.

POLITICAL IDENTITIES

The rough strategy involves giving each group an identity or specialization, and using propertarian language as a means of working together, so that each group does not have to master, or even value, the biases of the other.

Although the work of doing all that ought to be a bit daunting. Mostly because intellect is not evenly distributed across these groups. It’s hard enough to have a challenging talk with libertarians, but …. you know, having that talk with conservatives, and some DE folks, is an exercise in futility.

But reality is created by chanting. Repetition allows us to gradually connect the networks of neurons needed to understand associations.

The grammar of this language is pretty simple. It takes some getting used to. Because we’re linguistically lazy, and formal logic is linguistically burdensome, in exchange for argumentative clarity, and praxeological testability.

I HAD TO TEST MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS TO REPLACE THEM WITH PROPERTARIAN ETHICS.

I’m sure that I frustrated some libertarians. No one likes the slaughter of their sacred cows. Even though, it’s pretty clear that I’ve forever dispatched Rothbardian ethics from rational consideration.

I put a bullet in the NAP/PrivateProperty that it cannot recover from. The wound is mortal. It just depends on how long it will take for the idea to die.

I’ve demonstrated that either the NAP is the wrong test of violation of property, OR that the definition of property is insufficient in scope for rational use in a polity.

In propertarianism I have taken the approach of extending the definition of property and maintaining the principle of aggression against it because I have based, correctly, the source of property rights on the organized use of violence, and aggression is consistent with that argumentative logic.

I HAD TO TEST OPERATIONALISM AS AN ATTACK ON PLATONISM IN ORDER TO CREATE UNIVERSAL ETHICS, AND CONVERT PRAXEOLOGY INTO THE MISSING BRANCH OF LOGIC.

It was actually fascinating to see people in math and science DESPERATELY cling to their platonic arealism with the same fervor that mystics justify their defense of a supernatural god.

I’m still …. really… awed, that anyone presented with constructive(intuitionist,realist,operational) arguments would even for a MOMENT question that platonism was merely a crutch for the weak mind.

But operationalism and the logic of cooperation (praxeology) form the missing logic with which we begin to see all philosophy as a theory of action.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE

I guess I have to get serious now about (a) contributing to the other political dialogs, (b) introducing them to these ideas, and (c) producing the grammar and (d) finishing the first book (at least).