(Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.)

  1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of

In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes.

(Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law.

  1. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use).

  2. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property.

Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method).

  1. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently).

  2. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it.

  3. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule.

  4. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave.

  5. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority.

—“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser?

2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.

3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories.

4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst.

5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.

6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework.

7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role.

8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—