[W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Reminder to New Friends and Followers
[I] write controversial philosophy. If it was not controversial it would not be revolutionary. – And I embrace controversy as good marketing, and the good conduct of argumentative research. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/18/yes-im-controversial-but-why/ If my work is offensive, it means the person offended is a thief. That may seem an outrageous claim, but it will survive all criticisms. Truth is often painful. I don’t do racism, I do classism (eugenics). I’m for as diverse a planet of tribes as possible. And my understanding is that the differences between the races are almost entirely the product of differences in rates of reproduction of the lower classes. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=racism I don’t to statism I do nationalism.I don’t do anarchy, I do nomocracy (rule of law) under Natural Law, where my concept of natural law is not ‘fuzzy’ but thoroughly articulated. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=nomocracy I don’t do escape from the commons, I do market government for the construction of commons by exchange. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=market+government My work is not sentimental, not rationalistic, but social science hung on a philosophical framework, as a means of uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Propertarianism requires a great deal of general knowledge, and Testimonialism a great deal of understanding of philosophy and the philosophy of science, and possibly of the foundations of logic and mathematics. The current phase of my work addresses the problem of what we call religion, but better stated is the encoding of evolutionary strategy in a set of metaphysical value judgements, and their embodiment in myth, ritual, tradition and norms. So my current work is probably more accessible than the previous few years. My goal is to create a revolution that overthrows the Century of Lies and Mysticism (20th century). But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need: 1) Moral Authority : We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide. 2) A Solution : An alternative set of institutions that are capable of intertemporal persistence across many generations. 3) A Plan of Transition : the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it. 4) A Method Of Revolution : The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos. My work, my ‘book’, is an attempt to provide moral authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution. WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/06/dear-newbies-welcome-to-the-revolution/ SHORT COURSES IN PROPERTARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ WE NEED 100 MEN WHO CAN ARGUE USING PROPERTARIAN AND TESTIMONIALIST ARGUMENTS. Because that is what it will take to generate sufficient discussion and awareness to cause a revolution.
-
Reminder to New Friends and Followers
[I] write controversial philosophy. If it was not controversial it would not be revolutionary. – And I embrace controversy as good marketing, and the good conduct of argumentative research. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/18/yes-im-controversial-but-why/ If my work is offensive, it means the person offended is a thief. That may seem an outrageous claim, but it will survive all criticisms. Truth is often painful. I don’t do racism, I do classism (eugenics). I’m for as diverse a planet of tribes as possible. And my understanding is that the differences between the races are almost entirely the product of differences in rates of reproduction of the lower classes. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=racism I don’t to statism I do nationalism.I don’t do anarchy, I do nomocracy (rule of law) under Natural Law, where my concept of natural law is not ‘fuzzy’ but thoroughly articulated. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=nomocracy I don’t do escape from the commons, I do market government for the construction of commons by exchange. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=market+government My work is not sentimental, not rationalistic, but social science hung on a philosophical framework, as a means of uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Propertarianism requires a great deal of general knowledge, and Testimonialism a great deal of understanding of philosophy and the philosophy of science, and possibly of the foundations of logic and mathematics. The current phase of my work addresses the problem of what we call religion, but better stated is the encoding of evolutionary strategy in a set of metaphysical value judgements, and their embodiment in myth, ritual, tradition and norms. So my current work is probably more accessible than the previous few years. My goal is to create a revolution that overthrows the Century of Lies and Mysticism (20th century). But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need: 1) Moral Authority : We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide. 2) A Solution : An alternative set of institutions that are capable of intertemporal persistence across many generations. 3) A Plan of Transition : the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it. 4) A Method Of Revolution : The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos. My work, my ‘book’, is an attempt to provide moral authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution. WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/06/dear-newbies-welcome-to-the-revolution/ SHORT COURSES IN PROPERTARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ WE NEED 100 MEN WHO CAN ARGUE USING PROPERTARIAN AND TESTIMONIALIST ARGUMENTS. Because that is what it will take to generate sufficient discussion and awareness to cause a revolution.
-
The 19th Century Thinkers Were So Close…
[S]pencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold. Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of something new to mask the regret of the catastrophe. In other words, we replaced art, heroism, and truth, with crass consumption and, proletarianism to hold the state together, an innumerate pseudoscience to systematize it, and postmodern lies to defend it all. I understand that we must produce a synthesis of truth and religion. This is the hardest objective to solve. Principally because men need costly rituals in order to defend the principles that they attest to. I understand how the previous century failed. I understand why the great lies succeeded in the post war era, for the same reason that christianity succeeded in the post-war and post-plaque era. I think I understand how to create that religion, philosophy, logic, and science. Please god give me strength, energy, time, and resources to do it.
-
The 19th Century Thinkers Were So Close…
[S]pencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold. Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of something new to mask the regret of the catastrophe. In other words, we replaced art, heroism, and truth, with crass consumption and, proletarianism to hold the state together, an innumerate pseudoscience to systematize it, and postmodern lies to defend it all. I understand that we must produce a synthesis of truth and religion. This is the hardest objective to solve. Principally because men need costly rituals in order to defend the principles that they attest to. I understand how the previous century failed. I understand why the great lies succeeded in the post war era, for the same reason that christianity succeeded in the post-war and post-plaque era. I think I understand how to create that religion, philosophy, logic, and science. Please god give me strength, energy, time, and resources to do it.
-
“Your Audacity Impresses and Amuses Me”
—“Your audacity impresses and amuses me.”–
[G]iven that I’m outside of the academy, I am both too stupid to know that it cannot be done, and unregulated by academics who would prevent me from trying such an absurd thing. So I try in ignorance to achieve the unachievable. Now that I’ve gone through most of intellectual history, it seems that this same stupidity is common among the philosophers. Smith, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Spencer and Mises, Popper and Hayek all did the same. It appears that the academy is not a producer of great ideas, but a deterrent to them. Scarily enough it seems like I’ve made more progress than the others. For the simple reason that programming teaches you how to think a certain way. And that certain way is how we must construct laws: so that they are calculable not merely ‘reasonable’. I have no aires to protect like academics and politicians. I do not need money from book sales. I don’t care about the accolades of scholars. I’m just a lone lunatic slaving away at an impossible task, and out of dumb luck and circumstance have discovered the solution to the problem of the social sciences. We are subjects of our time. That is all.
-
“Your Audacity Impresses and Amuses Me”
—“Your audacity impresses and amuses me.”–
[G]iven that I’m outside of the academy, I am both too stupid to know that it cannot be done, and unregulated by academics who would prevent me from trying such an absurd thing. So I try in ignorance to achieve the unachievable. Now that I’ve gone through most of intellectual history, it seems that this same stupidity is common among the philosophers. Smith, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Spencer and Mises, Popper and Hayek all did the same. It appears that the academy is not a producer of great ideas, but a deterrent to them. Scarily enough it seems like I’ve made more progress than the others. For the simple reason that programming teaches you how to think a certain way. And that certain way is how we must construct laws: so that they are calculable not merely ‘reasonable’. I have no aires to protect like academics and politicians. I do not need money from book sales. I don’t care about the accolades of scholars. I’m just a lone lunatic slaving away at an impossible task, and out of dumb luck and circumstance have discovered the solution to the problem of the social sciences. We are subjects of our time. That is all.
-
Politicians vote their obligations. You cannot fix this. Man follows incentives.
Politicians vote their obligations.
You cannot fix this. Man follows incentives.
Replace elected politicians with juries chosen by lot.
Replace bills with petitions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 06:25:00 UTC
-
THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. I tend to treat argu
THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
I tend to treat argumentative methods as sets of technologies differentiated by their methods of decidability (testing): whether they produce truth or falsehood.
Mythology (explanatory)
Reasonableness (The Pre-Socratics: justifiable)
Reason (The Greeks: Critical)
Religious Reasoning (The Monotheists: Mythically Correspondent)
Rationalism (Kant: Internally Consistent)
Ratio-Empiricism (Hume, Smith, Locke: Empirically Consistent)
Scientific (Darwin, Einstein, Spencer: Deterministically consistent)
Pseudoscientific (Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes)
Pseudo-logical (the analytic philosophers of language)
Pseudo Rationalism (Postmodernists)
Testimonialism (what I do:
– categorically consistent
– internally consistent
– externally correspondent (empirically consistent)
– existentially possible (operationally stated)
– Limited and Parsimonious (falsified limits)
– Fully Accounted (against selection bias)
– Objectively Moral (consisting only of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.)
German philosophers tend to treat argumentative methods as methods of teaching: whether they are successful at conveyance or not.
As far as I Know Kant was trying to restate germanic christianity by justificationary means. He was remarkably successful. But it’s not ‘true’ in the sense that it’s correspondent. It’s just very well structured wisdom.
As far as I know the entire continental, cosmopolitan, and anglo-liberal programs were dead ends for different reasons. The german possessed the correct vision of man, but an unscientific method of argument insufficiently divorced from religion. The cosmopolitans merely creates series of elaborate lies with which to justify predation on the west. The anglos were so enamored of their wealth and power they assumed all men desired and were capable of
Man was not ‘kept down and oppressed’. He was not peaceful in the state of nature. He was a rapidly reproducing super predator happily competing with and killing off his own kind. Man was forcibly civilized against his will and against his desire for combating other sets of genes using malthusian reproduction. The entire enlightenment project was predicated on this fallacy. And the Germans, French, Cosmopolitan Jews, Anglo Liberals, and Anglo European neo-liberals were all wrong either in their method of argument, or their group evolutionary strategy, or their fantasy of the nature of man.
Man is trivially simple: he does what is in his interests at all times. We civilize man by prohibiting parasitism in all forms so that the only method of survival left to him is productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited externality of the same in the market for goods and services.
Man was not oppressed. He was forcibly domesticated. And the enlightenment errors of the europeans set free the barbarians. The most serious of which was pandora. Who, once she could open the ballot box, let loose all the ills in the world, that man through his incremental evolution of property rights as a means of suppressing parasitism, unwound within decades.
So that said, the OP’s question is a matter of angels on the heads of pins. The entire germanic corpus, like the french and the cosmopolitan jewish, and all but the scientific of the anglo, is nothing but a second attempt at imposing christian mysticism upon us with a new argumentative technology that is a mere minor improvement upon the last.
Truth is enough. If you cannot manage truth, then the question is why you fear it? Is it because one lacks the courage? Is it because the universe is hostile to man? Is it because it would eliminate our ability to act parasitically upon others? Or is it all of the above?
Truth is enough.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 05:08:00 UTC
-
RELATIONSHIPS: IS HE OR SHE “INTO” YOU? (love) Let me help you. If she’s ‘doing
RELATIONSHIPS: IS HE OR SHE “INTO” YOU?
(love)
Let me help you. If she’s ‘doing you’ then she’s into you. If she’s not ‘doing you’ then she’s not.
Likewise, if he’s trying to constantly spend time with you, he’s into you. If he isn’t trying constantly to spend time with you, he’s not into you.
Men and women hold out hope. She holds out hope he will give her more attention. He holds out hope that she will give him more sex. But the fact that you hold out hope is an admission of failure.
When we are attracted to each other we cannot bear to be apart. If you can bear to be apart. If you can bear be sleep alone. They you’re not into each other. It’s that simple.
Yes, I am referring to post 1960 relationships. Where our relations are not matters of survival, or matters of economic cooperation, but matters of love and friendship.
There is a difference between Useful, Interesting, fun, passion, and Love. Love is wanting the other person to be happy in order for you to be happy. It’s the inability to live without the other person.
Anything else is merely less. Maybe less than love is enough for some. But it’s not enough for those who produce and desire it.
You must not hope. You must not wait. You must understand: if he or she isn’t attracted to you then move on. Attraction is required for the development of long term love.
Habit is not a reason for a relationship. It certainly isn’t the recipe for an enduring one.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 03:37:00 UTC