Form: Argument

(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

(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