Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using

    THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY

    1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and

    2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and;

    3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons.

    4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

    In other words:

    You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it.

    Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

    We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse.

    And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:47:00 UTC

  • ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN any

    ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON

    1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.

    2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).

    3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.

    4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.

    5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.

    This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.

    As Eli Says:

    —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–

    In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).

    The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.

    Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.

    Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

    In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

    As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.

    in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.

    The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.

    Thus Endeth The Lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:43:00 UTC

  • Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation

    Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation) in order to categorize and test an outcome(consequence), since we may categorize consequences at any point in the time line in which actionable or deducible constant relations are identifiable. In other words, searches for prediction of futures are change (state) dependent.

    This may be heavy but it means that your prediction of future events from any state may vary by the utility you prefer.

    We must operate by general rules (categories) because that is all we can act upon (a concentration of constant relations during which we can effect a change in state.)

    We all bias our utility (judgements) on similar timelines if not only due to ability, but also on commensurability. Ergo, we develop out of necessity time preferences and the more expertise we develop in any time frame the more related (dependent) associations we develop in concert.

    This isn’t just choice it’s the economics of neural networks, and that economics is no different from the ‘economics’ of physics, biology, and sentience.

    (for Andy Curzon)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 09:59:00 UTC

  • All Critique Is “Lying” – and Here Is Why

    ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they *sexual, social, and political market value*, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle Apr 17, 2018 9:58am

  • All Critique Is “Lying” – and Here Is Why

    ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they *sexual, social, and political market value*, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle Apr 17, 2018 9:58am

  • The Law of Speech

    1 – the only rational reason to cooperate is because it is more rewarding than both non-cooperation AND predation. 2 – the only rational terms of cooperation that are more rewarding than non-cooperation and predation are those of reciprocity. 3 – Reciprocity is only possible because of truthful (fully informed), productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of externality. 4 – The only grammars of truthful speech are the operational. 5 – If You do not speak in operational grammars then you do not speak truthfully, with warranty, particularly of warranty against externality. 6 – If you did not speak then we could merely avoid one another. 7 – And ergo, if you speak in critique (deceit, fraud, hazard) there is no reason to refrain from predation, since you have both voided boycott and cooperation.

  • The Law of Speech

    1 – the only rational reason to cooperate is because it is more rewarding than both non-cooperation AND predation. 2 – the only rational terms of cooperation that are more rewarding than non-cooperation and predation are those of reciprocity. 3 – Reciprocity is only possible because of truthful (fully informed), productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of externality. 4 – The only grammars of truthful speech are the operational. 5 – If You do not speak in operational grammars then you do not speak truthfully, with warranty, particularly of warranty against externality. 6 – If you did not speak then we could merely avoid one another. 7 – And ergo, if you speak in critique (deceit, fraud, hazard) there is no reason to refrain from predation, since you have both voided boycott and cooperation.

  • ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY ( very important piece ) ( propertaria

    ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY

    ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core )

    1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not.

    2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior).

    3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking).

    IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE

    The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action.

    Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)?

    If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.)

    In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they *sexual, social, and political market value*, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value.

    GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT

    Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits.

    Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication).

    So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose.

    That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.)

    That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t.

    (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.)

    ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING

    Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose.

    We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-17 09:58:00 UTC

  • DESPERATE JUSTIFICATION —For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”

    DESPERATE JUSTIFICATION

    —For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”—

    Not even close.

    “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.”

    The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself.

    You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law.

    All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses.

    So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant).

    So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft.

    What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm.

    We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between.

    We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds.

    We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.

    Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion.

    It’s a truth.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson

    Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion.

    Painful truths are not popular.

    The law is the least popular.

    They are however, decidable.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-13 13:33:00 UTC

  • Desperate Justification

      —For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm