Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:01:00 UTC
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT. We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT.
We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent.
We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent.
But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying.
Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion).
All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception.
The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit?
That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.)
End the century of lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:45:00 UTC
-
DRONES HOVERING 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) b
DRONES HOVERING
1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones.
2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then
3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes.
4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines.
So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:35:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION The moral man is skep
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION
The moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man.
But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask.
So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask.
So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal.
As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally.
I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask.
This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 02:39:00 UTC
-
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE
It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality.
Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge.
No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance.
Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:56:00 UTC
-
ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION ***I’ll simplify
ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION
***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.***
A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer.
And much more.
Rothbardianism is just parasitism.
If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:39:00 UTC
-
***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retal
***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but gypsies keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay. Jews do not limit their parasitism, and perform it largely through externality or deception, and this is why they are, over the centuries, repeatedly retaliated against: because the cost has become high enough that hosts must.****
This is not unknown since jewish authors discuss this problem openly.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:30:00 UTC
-
shaming me you do what you accuse me of”— Ah. But the condition is quite diffe
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/19/propertarianism-is-for-the-prosecution/—“by shaming me you do what you accuse me of”—
Ah. But the condition is quite different. Lets see…
Work through it because you cannot escape the fact that you use misrepresentative language to obscure your attribution of authority to the self by justificationary-rationality, rather than to non-retaliation (cost) by ratio-empiricism. ie: you err.
We aren’t debating any longer. I accuse you of deceit. This deceit may be the product of wishful thinking. It may be justified by inarticulate obscurant language, but it is not deceit by intent, then it is deceit by wishful thinking none the less.
***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but they keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay.
And this is the Libertine (NAP/ISV strategy), which is to claim not that separatism is a parasitic subgroup strategy within a host. But that all members of a polity should engage in separatist ethics.
And this is non-rational. It is the host’s production of commons that make free riding possible. It is the host’s production of commons that make the host itself possible. Because even your parasitic ethics of NAP/IVP must be constructed as a commons, and enforced as a commons.
***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.*** Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.
(This is probably more understandable to you than the technique of analytic philosophy.)
So, you see, that is what separates those of us who defend the commons from those of you who harm it. We pay the cost of commons maintenance. You do not.
And that is why you can select free riding on the commons using NAP/IVP and we select NA/DemonstratedProperty despite the high cost of policing the commons.
So since you engage in deceit and harm the commons, I engage in accusation.
And when that occurs we are not debating. I am prosecuting you.
Because you pollute the commons with excuses for non payment of them while relying upon them. ie you’re a parasite.
PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:27:00 UTC
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt