—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Where does a Newbie Start?
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
Where does a Newbie Start?
—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT) (behold the parsimon
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT)
(behold the parsimony of genius)
By James Augustus
Propertarian Heuristic: where one observes conflation, one is likely to observe some degree of deception.
Corollary: where one observes deception, one is likely to observe some dimension of discount-seeking (parasitism).
And that can apply to:
(a) conflation as substitution for understanding of existential operations (seeking discounts on intellectual authority), and;
(b) conflation as means of limiting the scope of information considered on matters that require decidability (seeking discounts on exchange/cooperation).
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:00:00 UTC
-
ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM) Anne (All), You know, I
ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM)
Anne (All),
You know, I can actually write a short book, “The Law of Nature”, with help from a few others in this group of ours. Although I still need a little help from the “Occultists” etc to color it a bit.
Even a few months ago I thought I couldn’t do it yet. But I’ve realized over the past few weeks that I can. I can make a very short, very small book. In fact, I am getting close to thinking that I can write something as small as a pamphlet or paper. That’s the value of taking so long. I get better at ‘simplificating and adding brevity’.
But you know, I’ve put more than a million dollars of my own money, and not insignificant amounts of my friends money, in to our product and I need to get it to commercial-quality done.
That is my moral imperative.
And honestly, evidence is that the longer I take, the more demand goes up, the better I get at saying it in fewer words.
Our (my advisors and I) original plan still holds:
1 – put out enough of a skeleton on the web site that I can attract early adopters and good criticism from ‘near neighbors’ in the community.
2 – put out a booklet or pamphlet, or ‘paper’ that contains the full argument but without all the narrative and all the historical content and examples.
3 – put out ‘the bible of western civilization’ which will forever serve as the legal, moral, and religious basis of western peoples – and all peoples who wish to transcend.
If it was easy someone else would have figured it out. But you know, christianity put an evil dent in our people. The defeat of roman civilization put an evil dent in our people. The muslim conquest put an evil dent in humanity. and unfortunately, and quite counter-intuitively, Mathematical reasoning put an evil dent in the greek philosophers.
The basis of western civlization was always there: the cult of sovereignty: the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.
“I shall speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth even if it brings me death. I will take nothing not paid for. And I will cause no other to bear cost by my words or deeds. And if I break this oath I ask you my brothers to kill me for it.”
If you practice this oath of initiation on a civilizational scale (and regardless of gender), with near-kin, then you will get western civlization because one cannot both keep that oath and do anything other than construct western civlization: sovereignty, truth, and markets in everything.
All I am doing is making even an argument against this oath prosecutable to the point of death.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:13:00 UTC
-
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important)
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM
(propertarianism core)(important)
Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already.
For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.
EXPLANATION
Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.
Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.
So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.
THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false)”
(Reminds me of Yoda-speak, or Latin… lol)
In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.
FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW
If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.
{terms and definitions }
-We … (who)
-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )
-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)
-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)
and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)
-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)
and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),
-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).
-Signed
…. -Juried
…. …. -Adjudicated.
…. …. …. -Recorded.
This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution.
Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions.
We must correct:
The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty.
All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and tehir ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission.
WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH
By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years.
We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior.
This is terribly easy todo. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity.
And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit.
APOLOGIES
I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 13:27:00 UTC
-
LOOK AT WHAT OUR PEOPLE CAN DO!!!! —“Sovereign men make a market for commons p
LOOK AT WHAT OUR PEOPLE CAN DO!!!!
—“Sovereign men make a market for commons possible by enforcing natural law. They allow non-sovereign men (i.e. those men that can’t pay the cost of insuring other sovereigns) to participate in the market for goods and commons, as long as they (non-sovereigns) limit their transactions to productive, fully warrantied, reciprocal transfers that produce no negative externalities. We call this allowance LIBERTY. It is made possible by the construction of the commons we call RULE OF LAW, which is paid for by the federated sovereigns, i.e. militia, judges, and the insurer of last resort: king.”— A Sock.
Can you imagine that argument three years ago? whoo hooo!!!!
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-16 16:08:00 UTC
-
“Another of the main aspects of Propertarianism which Libertarianism usually doe
—“Another of the main aspects of Propertarianism which Libertarianism usually does not recognize properly is commons.
They accept humans own themselves, but don’t consider the ramifications of confederation.
Relationships own themselves. Families own themselves. Communities own themselves. Society owns itself.
To gain the benefits of economic cooperation and peaceful coexistence we must create the social acceptance of, and trust in, property rights. Cooperative society emerges from this common investment.
Libertarians see themselves as entitled to these conditions of peaceful coexistence from which economic cooperation may emerge, but these things come at a price, and if they refuse to pay their share they seek to gain the common property of liberty by parasitic theft.”—Joel Davis
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 09:16:00 UTC
-
“Whilst I would consider myself a moral objectivist to a large extent, it was Pr
—“Whilst I would consider myself a moral objectivist to a large extent, it was Propertarianism that allowed me to expand on that (rational position) as a Natural Law (empirical position); and provided the means to confirm my position that there exists such a thing as moral violence when needed. …. Many Libertarians struggle getting past the NAP because many Libertarians are moral objectivists and thus struggle with the idea of a moral aggression. But it exists and you describe it well. And in hindsight it is demonstrable throughout all history.”—Nick Zito
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 06:19:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW: EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL —“I would say that your use o
PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW: EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL
—“I would say that your use of the term Natural Law, as opposed to the former englightment thinkers, is empirical (as opposed to their rational.) They used it to describe a set of innately known or knowable rules of moral behaviour. You are using it to describe a set of discovered rules which are necessary for cooperation.”—-Ivan Ilakovac
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 05:50:00 UTC
-
By Bill Joslin —“The series of values: Life, Liberty, and Property reflect a s
By Bill Joslin
—“The series of values: Life, Liberty, and Property reflect a series of steady states in time:
1) Life: Myself in the moment (self-ownership)
2) Liberty: My life in the future
3) Property: The results of my life in the past
Using Properarianism’s Sovereignty, Testimonialism, and Propertarianism, we now have an operational triad which less poetically and more existentially accounts for Locke’s Life, Liberty, and Property.
1) Life – Sovereignty (far more robust term, which can be demonstrated versus proclaimed via appeals to morality
2) Liberty – Testimonialism (effective future action in applying our efforts and deciding exchanges toward productive ends)
3) Property – Propertarianism: Property in toto (expanded and demonstrated definition of property)
We’ve improved upon Life, Liberty, and Property”—
Bill – I have an intuition that we could express this in relation to OTHERS (as a law of cooperation) rather than of self (as an appeal for liberty from the state, as Locke was doing)
What do soverignty, testimony, and property cause us to grant for others in exchange for what? Then how do we tie that back to myself, and ourselves, my life and our lives, my property and our property?
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 20:24:00 UTC