(FB 1551884573 Timestamp)

RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY

=Turd Flinging Monkey=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU&

== CURTD ==

Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort.

But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism.

Very tedious to defend against straw men.

=Turd Flinging Monkey=

I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out.

However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want.

==CURTD==

Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines.

Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully.

Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic.

The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace).

We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’)

We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness.

But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason.

As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law.

This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits.

For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public.

The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children.

But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).