SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR?
(floundering on the obvious)
Yet, if I *DO* know how to speak truthfully, and I do not, even if I repeat my prior statement, I am speaking dishonestly.
So, then if a constitution defines honesty non-obscuranatly (operationally) then one cannot claim to NOT know it, yet at the same time argue within the constraints of the constitution? Right?
Too simple.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:40:00 UTC
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GG0C9WK/THE CAUSE OF HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM: “SHARED INTENTIONALITY”
(book recommendation)
–“Human thought, in Tomasello’s conception, is different from that of all other organisms because humans alone have the capacity to think about the thoughts of others, and do so collectively. Tomasello’s greatest strength is his insistence on relying on data to support his hypotheses, particularly the fascinating studies he summarizes comparing pre‐ linguistic children to our great ape relatives. (Publishers Weekly 2013-12-02)”–
–“What is it that differentiates humans from other animals? It’s the question that keeps evolutionary anthropologists like Michael Tomasello up nights. But after 20-plus years wrestling with the thorny subject, he puts forward his ‘shared intentionality hypothesis,’ designed to account for how early humans learned to coordinate their actions and communicate their thoughts with collaborators. (New Scientist 2014-01-04)”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:25:00 UTC
–“So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good self-hating white American male.”–
Justin Ptak
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:47:00 UTC
–“Gods are important for the wisdom and virtues they represent. This is a point in favor of polytheism. Not all wisdom and virtues are equally important for everyone.”–
Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:41:00 UTC
HOPPE’S RIGHT – YOU CAN’T SAY ‘LIBERTY’ IN STATE-FUNDED ACADEMIA – YOU HAVE TO WORK OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA TO DO THE WORK THAT MUST BE DONE.
I bet I couldn’t find a dissertation committee for my project. I bet if I was in state-funded-academia there is no way I could keep my job and do this work. Sean Gabb lamented a few weeks ago, that we used to have people in academia, media, and government, but we don’t. You have to do your work outside of the state-system. Even our closest allies at GMU never violate the sanctity of the social democratic state, democracy, and equality except in very timid terms: policy preference.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:31:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-respond-in-this-version-of-the-Ultimate-Game-a-famous-economic-experiment
https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-respond-in-this-version-of-the-Ultimate-Game-a-famous-economic-experiment
-MY OWN TINFOIL HAT WARNING-
So, what happens if the chinese keep extending the bubble so that it pops closer to 2020 when the USA hits it’s similar cycle AND the demographic cycle, AND europe hits its hard wall, AND the USA loses a grip on the international pattern of finance and trade?
Sea Peoples. It’ll be like the sea peoples. lol
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 16:03:00 UTC
QUESTIONING MYSELF, BUT IT SEEMS THAT I MUST SOLVE HONESTY IF NOT TRUTH.
(Still having serious cold and or allergy problems. And having trouble getting in the zone.)
But I’ve been wrestling with the idea of whether or not I need to solve this problem of “Truth” or not in order to finish my work. And, unfortunately, the problem is that I do have to solve it.
MORALITY: I can solve the problem of articulating the objective source of moral instincts.
ETHICS: I can solve the problem of the ethics of cooperation (free riding) – by extending the definition of property rights and adding truth, warranty, symmetry.
POLITICS: I can solve the problem of politics by adding calculability (in all its complexity)
POLITICAL SPEECH: But I think I must solve the problem of public speech as well since it is more influential in the formation of agreements than the rules by which agreements are constructed.
====
MORAL VIOLATIONS
Those discounts, in economic terms are:
1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. War (organized violence, theft and destruction)
16. Immigration (conquest via displacement)
17. Conversion (conquest via mysticism)
PERSONAL ETHICS
The Ethical code that prevents those discounts (involuntary transfers, free riding) consists in:
1. Requirement that all demonstrated property be categorized as Private Property
2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange
3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth
4. Requirement for Accountability for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth)
5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry
6. Requirement for Prohibition on negative externalities.
POLITICAL ETHICS
The Political Ethical Code consists in
1. Requirement for the One Law of Property
2. The Common (Organic) Law
3. The Professional Independent Judiciary
4. Contracts not law
– perishability
– universality
5. Requirement of “Calculability”
(note: technically speaking the requirement of calculability implies the requirement for operational language, and the requiremnet for strict constructionism. However, since that deduction apparently isn’t obvious I feel I should call out operational language in the construction of law also.)
6. Right of rejection, exclusion, secession (boycott, and ostracization)
POLITICAL SPEECH
The Public Intellectual’s, Politician’s, Public Speech’s Ethical Code consists in:
1. Requirement for operational language in e-prime as a defense against deception as a means of advocating involuntary transfers.
2. Prohibition on advocacy of involuntary transfer and the universal requirement voluntary ethical exchange.
PROBLEMS
1. (Prohibition on Inbreeding?)
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 15:30:00 UTC
WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS?
I mean, what kind of person wants it to be legal to lie, cheat, deceive, but not use violence against those who lie, cheat and deceive?
It’s not complicated.
Rothbard was wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 10:24:00 UTC