Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

Curt Doolittle updated his status.

WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

IT’S NOT COMPLICATED
Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

IT’S NOT COMPLICATED

Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.