(important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Sociopaths and Hate vs Natural Law and Love
So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
Sociopaths and Hate vs Natural Law and Love
So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION. (impor
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION.
(important)(core)(the consolidated idea)
There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination.
A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing.
By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.
Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury.
And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel.
And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech.
So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity.
The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 09:10:00 UTC
-
well, you know, the problem with taking what you want is numbers. the purpose of
well, you know, the problem with taking what you want is numbers. the purpose of morality is that it increases your numbers. High trust moral civilizations produce awesome profits and therefore weapons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 01:39:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997290460346449920
Reply addressees: @someperson426
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997277729455198208
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997277729455198208
-
THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE” —“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only giv
THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE”
—“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only give us one law. Anything above that is no longer parsimonious.”— Bryan Nova Brey
The profundity of that statement is something worthy of a great deal of contemplation. Seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 20:23:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997211125686075398
-
THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE” —“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only giv
THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE”
—“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only give us one law. Anything above that is no longer parsimonious.”— Bryan Nova Brey
The profundity of that statement is something worthy of a great deal of contemplation. Seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 16:23:00 UTC
-
Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productiv
Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed.
The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental.
The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military).
If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 14:15:00 UTC
-
If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.
Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.
-
The Constitution of A Moral Human, and A Moral Ai.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.* The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons. We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record. Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable. In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’. The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity. The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.) The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges. And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another. I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology. Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices). I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots). Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability). The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference. There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action. May 17, 2018 3:29pm