PROPERTARIANISM: DECIDABILITY VIA CALCULABILITY
If moral a proposition can be expressed in propertarian terms, the matter is metaphysically extant, and free of loading. It is also rationally decidable.
This is an incredibly cool thing if you’re a philosopher. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:17:00 UTC
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-dawkins/richard-dawkins-rape-tweets_b_5633885.htmlDEAR RICHARD DAWKINS. THAT’S NOT PHILOSOPHY. IT’S ENTERTAINMENT
(I love it when I can out-do one of the big guns.)
It is most interesting that none of these supposed dilemmas are dilemmas at all, but framings that take advantage of cognitive biases. If instead, we say that we insure one another as a means of ensuring voluntary cooperation between large numbers of super-predators, and that without trust, none of the circumstances where the above supposed moral dilemmas can exist. So we are far more conscious of, and respectful, of norms (the terms of reciprocal insurance) than we are of any other factor, and if we were not, then no ‘society’ would be possible.
Morality is not a subjective matter, as we have supposed for millennia. But reducible to statements of necessity given the requirements for humans to rationally choose to cooperate in numbers greater than direct kin. The error is the application of enlightenment universal individualism to what are necessary rules of cooperation – without which cooperation is not rational, utilitarian or possible.
I have attacked these moral fallacies in philosophy everywhere I find them. They are no more than victorian parlor games. That doesn’t mean they aren’t fun. It means that the answer is not contained in the framing of the question, but external to it.
It’s a form of entertainment, a demonstration of the power of suggestion, but it’s not science. And it’s not good philosophy or psychology either. 🙂
–Curt Doolittle . The Propertarian Institute . Kiev, Ukraine.–
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:15:00 UTC
HICKS, MACDONALD, DUCHESNE, HAIDT, DOOLITTLE
You see. We have an intellectual core. 😉
Independently we come to similar conclusions by different means:
– Stephen Hicks by intellectual history.
– Kevin Macdonald by psychology, evolutionary biology, and history.
– Ricardo Duchesne by marxism and then history and intellectual history.
– Haidt by political psychology
– Doolittle by calculability (not computability): property, the logic of cooperation, institutions of cooperation, and evolutionary morality. (which is a certain form of psychology in itself)
WE HAVE DATA NOW – EVIDENCE
Previous generations could only theorize about the outcomes of socialism/postmodernism/progressivism, Rothbardian Libertinism, and neo-conservatism. But we have data.
And data is evidence.
And the evidence is in.
Unaligned or not. Organized or not. We have a movement.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:25:00 UTC
THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH
THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH TELLING
What we westerners didn’t and don’t understand is the importance of truth telling as constant training for seeing the world in terms that we would eventually call ‘scientific’. And, consequently, if you tell the truth then you require debate to resolve conflicts. If you conduct debate you require reason. If you conduct reason you will eventually require science (evidence). If you conduct science you will eventually run into the problem of observability and scale and require instruments (instrumentalism). You do not require a third party ideal mythology as means of arbitrating rules. If you tell the truth you can use a jury, and do not need a third party authority arbitrating disputes. Instead of a mythology you can construct common laws. If you tell the truth and have common laws you can build trade FASTER than other people build trade. And that is the secret to the west. We started the bronze age later than everyone else, and produce the first steps of the industrial revolution in greece. We were forcibly indoctrinated into authoritarianism under Christianity, but once we rid ourselves of the authoritarianism, we built the second industrial revolution, and dragged the world out of ignorance and poverty in only 500 years.
Truth telling creates universalism. Just as much as distributed family structures do under manorialism.
BRIBERY INTO A CULTURE OF LIES
Meanwhile the utility of not speaking the truth, or speaking in allegory (loaded and framed language) or using overloading to force allegorical speech (monotheistic religion), is a constant competitor to the high cost of truth telling to the individual, but the high value of truth telling to the group.
So, competitor need only bribe you marginally, and eliminate the punishment for not telling the truth, and eventually, not thinking truthfully, or even, turning lying into a ‘good’, in order easily persuade a population to justify not telling the truth.
The easiest way to to do that is by overloading: To use the media. Public intellectuals. Academics. Writers. To saturate society with bribes to cease paying the high cost of truth telling.
The conspiracy against truth telling. Bribery into lying. And funding it with the state redistribution, and entertainment media.
THE RESTORATION
The commons is our property. The property of any man who would fight to keep the land upon which we build physical and normative commons. Any shareholder can bring a suit against violations of that property. And under common law we can force the truth. And we can re-habituate truth by prosecuting and punishing liars, and those who create the incentive to lie. There is no difference between a virus that damages hardware and a meme that damages the commons of truth telling. Intellectuals produce products for the commons, and if you are paid for the production of those products then you are open to prosecution for the selling of defective and harmful products.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:21:00 UTC
NO. I DON”T NEED TO SOLVE IT. MACDONALD DID: ALTRUISM, GUILT, AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
The reason I didn’t buy it the first time around is because he places a lot of emphasis on genetic tendency and I tend to treat such things as neutral, and to look for information-based (normative and metaphysical) causes to behavior first.
While there are clear genetic differences in behavior between our tribes, I tend to look for normative answers not genetic ones. Usually they walk hand-in-hand.
BUT I DO NEED TO DEFEND AGAINST IT.
1) All Groups Must Act In Self Interest.
2) Cooperation is preferable to parasitism, is preferable to conquest, is preferable to extermination. And if we cannot engage in cooperation, you may NOT engage in parasitism, conquest or extermination.
3) No Guilt Ever. (Nor colonialism). Speak Truthfully. No Guilt.
4) The world cannot adopt our civilization, whether genetic, normative or both.
5) We cannot tolerate excessive dilution of our civilization, whether genetic normative or both.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 00:52:00 UTC
EDITED AND EXPANDED TO INCLUDE GUILT AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 00:38:00 UTC
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-dawkins/richard-dawkins-rape-tweets_b_5633885.html
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 23:58:00 UTC
(Its like college! I live in an apartment with young women and we can walk around in our underwear. Right now the girls are drinking Jack in the kitchen. lol Everyone follows the traditional path to self confirmation of maturity by getting a house of their own to maintain, and possessions to serve as entertainment. But the smart and fun thing to do is to live with a bunch of friends or family and inventory your cash because you provide each other with entertainment. Why didn’t someone explain this to me when I was 16? ) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 15:57:00 UTC
The dim talk about feelings. The well intentioned talk about beliefs. And the wise talk about institutions.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:55:00 UTC
TELLING THE TRUTH VS BUILDING HIGH TRUST
An essay on responsibility for speaking the truth, producing the consequence of high trust.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:34:00 UTC