REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF PROPERTARIANISM Now that I have shown that: 1) Scien

REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF PROPERTARIANISM

Now that I have shown that:

1) Science is a name for the discipline of truthfully speaking, regardless of subject;

2) And that physical science merely ignores cost and morality (making it easier to speak the truth against political convention); but that cost and morality can be added to the method of truthfully speaking – yielding the universal means of warrantable, insurable, and therefore truthful speech.

3) And that all disciplines must adhere to the art of truthful speech for their statements to be warrantable (and therefore their work products distributable);

I must now return to one of the arguments the Critical Rationalist group attacked me with such hostility for:

4) That the epistemic cycle of the scientific method is the universal method, and that consumers producers, engineers, and scientists merely attribute preferential value to different inputs and outputs of that methodological process. But this process is the universal method that man has evolved and must follow. And somehow I must find a way of talking about that so that it’s not so confusing. And I think that way of talking requires a few pictures.

5) That if we account for costs and morality, then justification is no longer illogical, but merely an earlier, lower-cost, technology – just as repetition and imitation were earlier least-cost technologies, just as memory, was the lowest possible cost technology after genetic memory (evolution).

IF ONLY THEY HAD LISTENED TO WEBER

Mises got his idea of economic calculation from Weber, and Weber was right – as he was about many things. Which is why Minsky is ‘right’ – which Ludwig van den Hauwe managed to get through my rather thick skull this weekend with his new paper on crises. I had never paid Minsky much attention, but he is closer to an operational analysis of the problem than the Austrians were. So I’m going to have to revisit Weber, Poincaré, Schumpeter, and Minsky and see if I can put the problem of calculability in terms familiar to the history of economic thought.

And maybe then I can work on calculability, law, and constitutions.

I DON’T THINK ONE CAN IMPROVE MUCH ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

I think the improvements are in warranty (falsification), and in insurance (law), which will assist us in preventing error, bias and deception.

BECAUSE WE CANNOT TOLERATE ANOTHER CHRISTIANIZATION, COUNTER ENLIGHTENMENT(RATIONALISM), PSEUDOCIENTIFIC CONQUEST(COSMOPOLITANISM), OR POSTMODERN/NEO-PURITANIZATION SUICIDE OF THE WEST.

Our struggle goes on. The constant struggle to resist the seduction that the rest of the world fell into – the comfort of lies.

**The seduction by the words of priests rather than adaptation to the actions of heroes.**

Because truth, trust, production, and commons are the west’s competitive advantage against the untruthful, untrusting, unproductive, and parasitic peoples.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine