IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW *My function is to provide for rule

IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW

*My function is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.*

1 -Of all the available terms for a philosophy I chose propertarianism because it was the name of the measurement upon which the decidability was provided. Likewise, when I chose from all the available terms “Operationalism” I chose it because it was the name of the measurement upon which decidability was provided. Of all the available terms for truth I chose testimonialism because it names the action. While possession exists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), operationalism consists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), and testimony exist as a demonstration of energy expenditure (speech-action).

2 – By referring to another definition (Stanford) rather than the definition I use, just as say Einstein corrected the definition of gravity? Are you saying I can’t correct the Operationalists(Physics), Intuitionists(Mathematics), and Operationists (Psychology), Praxeologists(Economics), Strict Constructionists(Law), and Critical Rationalists(Philosophy), and the Philosophy of Action(Metaphysics), by providing the integration that they all intuit but could not previously provide?

3 – Are you conflating the sequence of states of possibility: meaning (free association), explanation (justification), survival (criticism), truth (parsimony), with one another and stating that there is no difference in informational content?

4 – Do you not understand the difference between via-positiva: the addition of information and properties that through suggestion assist in free association and therefore meaning – with via-negativa: the subtraction of information and properties that were created through via-positiva association and suggestion?

5 – Do you confuse (conflate) necessary causal relations, with causal relations, with potential relations, with meaningful relations, with relations only through relations of meaning

5 – Do you confuse the scope ‘existence’ in all its impossible, potential and even yet unknown forms, with the scope of existences that are possible, with the scope of ‘existence’ in which men can imagine, men can speak, men can act, and men produce instruments upon that which they can act? And whether they can testify to an existence that they cannot imagine, speak of, and act upon?

7 – And (While I believe you are intellectually honest and reasonably erudite) how do I know that you are not (like all other people) the victim of your genes, which bias your the weights of your intuition, which bias your accumulation of useful justifications (knowledge), which cumulatively constitute investment, which cumulatively render you insulated from falsification of that genetic bias? The only way to know that is testimony. For there is nothing that cannot be said Testimonially (Truthfully), there are only false claims of preference, persuasion, and authority that cannot be made Testimonially(Truthfully). And I am quite certain it is fear of truth’s exposition of their false claims of prefernece, persuasion, and authority that prevents people from speaking truthfully.

8 – I did not make a philosophy(decidability within a context) or a literature ( possibilities within that context of decidability) of meaning – meaning from which we obtain joy, inspiration, ideas, and within which we can seize opportunities, make plans, take actions, and organize into groups to divide the labor. I facilitated the means of doing so at increasing scales, by facilitating the means of defense against ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Just as others invent means of exploiting ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. We can then choose between methods of deceit and methods of truth, and everything in between. But the evidence has shown that truth produces western civilization and anything else does not. The reason being that truth allows adaptation to circumstance at all levels of a hierarchy faster than all other means of adapting to circumstances at all levels of a hierarchy.

9 – I did not make Propertarianism (Natural Law) to inspire, or to create ideas – that will only occur as an externality. And it is via-externality that one rules by incentive rather than command.

Law is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy (bear costs) in altrusitic punishment, to impose the harm of greater sized organizations (the insurer of last resort) upon those of lesser sized organizations (groups, organizations, families, and individuals).

Property is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy to fulfill our wants, with whatever limited resource are available to us in the moment.

By externality, property and law produce wealth that can be extracted and put to use – by any individual, group, minority or majority, for whatever purpose one chooses.

What one does to invest in one’s in-group, between groups, or against out groups, is a matter of preference.

10 – In the great question that still lies unanswered: did western man originally demonstrate a more existential bias in his genes? Or was it the natural consequence of those who were superior at war maneuver warfare? Or was the combination of maneuver warfare and the culture that employed it a cause of internal reproductive selection? Or was it an origin myth that caused all of the above? Well while we do not yet know if westerners were more empirically biased – although some researchers suggest so because of language, we are fairly certain at this point that the sequence was one of the utility of technology, the development of heroism, contract, and property to make use of the tactics of maneuver (speed), and the transformation of culture (patriarchy) that resulted from it, and the narratives that resulted from justifying that culture. It may be true (it is true) that one needs intergenerational narratives to persist group evolutionary strategies.

Now onto the question of the bourgeoise.

1 – there is a difference between each of: goals, resources, strategy, tactics, training, and inspiration.

The great generals are always men who apply new technology, invest heavily in logistics, and rely least on the mercurial character of their men.

I do not see anything terribly difficult in the conduct of war because authoritarian structures are trivially simple to organize, build, and command. But they are dead weight costs and the most expensive direct costs a people can bear. It is the investment in new weapons, arms, and armor that makes a competitive difference in war. The development of an economy that makes that investment possible. And the abilty to afford to maintain a standing army of professional warriors.

2 – in any conflict one man may be marginally different from another – something that is genetically determined. Rifles eliminated marginal difference in physicality, and reduced it to temperament and fitness – which through training we learned to eliminate. But once we have anything other than one-to-one, the difference is purely that of training and technology. And once we have technological parity we have tactical parity, and the difference is purely that of logistics and strategy. And if we have logistic and strategic parity, then the difference is purely economic and demographic scale. And once we have economic and demographic parity the difference is purely one of demographic distribution. And this is where western man’s aristocratic eugenics have been so influential. Professional warriors (athletes) with from the aristocratic classes, and armies from the meritocratic classes rather than a few aristocratic generals and a large number of eunochs, peasants, and slaves.

Secondly, most warfare is now conducted economically today rather than militarily for that reason.

3 – Kings develop assets. Generals develop strategies with them given strategic problems. Majors manage resource for their men. Captains train men to work with the tech and resources that they must use in battle. Lieutenants divide the labor of rule, sergeants direct the men, and soldiers fight with all their might using what that long chain of men has given them to work with – and until the (now ended) Peace of Westphalia they profited by the capture of whatever it is that was left on the field, the farms, the village, and the cities now undefended as their compensation – reserving great prizes for their superiors and taking portable wealth for themselves.

4 – So, while I do not want to dissuade the soldiers and warriors from whatever religion, myth, literature, and ritual that assists them in forming the bonds necessary to enter into battle in confidence and contract with one another, I do not take seriously criticisms that worries of the soldiery are causal – but consequential. And I do not take criticism of the kings and generals and majors and capitans who ensure that those men, those warriors – even if marginally in different – and only marginally different in numbers, technology, devotion, and skill.

My job is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.

Once we win we must rule. We stopped ruling. And that was our mistake.