Thinking through the remainder of Propertarianism.

WHICH COMMUNICATION METHOD?

  1. Poem / Parable / Story / Novel / Play, (analogy), Dostoyevsky, Orwell

  2. Essay(Advice / Preference), Locke, Smith, and Hume.

  3. Argument(scholarly persuasion / Necessity), Darwin.

  4. Prescription (law, actionable / requirement ), The US Constitution.

  5. Bible(Law+Myth, Pedagogy) Koran, Hebrew law. The Western Canon

ETHICAL METHODS

  1. Virtue Ethics (Imitation) – in Youth – Using Story

  2. Deontological Ethics (Rules) – at Maturity – Using Prescription(Law) or Argument

  3. Teleological Ethics (Outcomes) – when Aged – Using Essay or Bible

LIFE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED

  1. Youth – Little Experience – virtue ethics – outcomes

  2. Maturity – Some Experience – Deontological ethics.

  3. Aged – Much : Teleological ethics – outcomes.

REQUIREMENTS

  1. Durable medium – the longer the better. myths last forever.

  2. Pedagogical – can be taught by parable or by rule, or studied to gain wisdom.

  3. Hard to criticize – can survive decades if not centuries of criticism

THOUGHTS

My first draft in 2006 was an essay. The second draft in 2013 was an argument. But both were plagued by ideosyncratic language. So (on advice from hoppe) I rewrote it using standard philosophical language, using the five branches of philosophy as the skeleton.

Over the past two years, I’ve been able to condense the arguments substantially, and make them more comprehensible. Mostly through continuing to enumerate a number of spectra. And at this point, Propertarianism is much closer to Spinoza’s extremely parsimonious work than Smith’s windy narrative, and Hume or Kant’s, structured arguments.

My intuition tells me that since propertarianism and testimonialism constitute a LEGAL philosophy (a political philosophy expressed as law), that I should not really get into the business of defending each of the propositions. I would lose the reader. And rather than justify the reasoning I should merely DEMONSTRATE it’s explanatory power. I should state the law as “given x, we seek y, by doing z, and this is moral because of w.” Then to follow with examples showing adherence to the rule, then failure to adhere to the rule. Then to address every possible questions of conflict both private and public that I can (like the reformed Torah).

The intuition that I should write Propertrianism (Testimonialism) as a legal version of the 48 Laws of Power (book) has been nagging me for years now. And it’s held up consistently enough that I don’t think it’s going to change.

I am incapable of writing a novel. Novels, Essays and Arguments are not as durable as laws and bibles. And I want Propertariaism(Testimonialism) to be durable. For centuries. At least.

So the big question is: “can I write a bible”. And the answer, I think is yes.

Science, Philosophy, Morality, Law, Politics and Religion in a single volume.

All identical.

All unified.