Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • SCIENCE IS THE PRODUCT OF MAN AND MAN ALONE – AND METAL WAS HIS MUSE —“Science

    SCIENCE IS THE PRODUCT OF MAN AND MAN ALONE – AND METAL WAS HIS MUSE

    —“Science did not develop apart from God somehow. “—

    Science developed by human trial and error – largely in the pursuit of the competitive utility of metal, and all that metals brought us. Aristotle and Archimedes developed what we call the foundations of science today, and aristotle, zeno, and the stoics developed the foundations of law that we use today. These were inventions of man.

    The romans specifically rejected the idealism of the greeks, and it was their pragmatism that led them to build what the greeks failed to: a civilization. And to avoid what the greeks had done, which was philosophical utopianism, and democratic overextension.

    Science evolve little during the church’s reign and often under some degree of persecution. Although not as much prosecution as under islam. Or as much as its total absence under judaism.

    Science evolved rapidly after Bacon. And despite the anglo enlightenment and industrial revolution, the german second enlightenment and industrial revolution, and the current (albeit weak) American attempt at ending the Second Abrahamic Conquest of the West by Marxism, Socialism, Feminism, and Postmodernism, we still have not completed ending the revolt by athens(idealism), jerusalem(judaism), Constantinople/Anatolia(christianity), and the Damascus/Bekaa-Valley(Islam) against the people of action (Sparta, northern/germanic Europe).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:37:00 UTC

  • “Is there a foundation for reality? For us and the universe?”— The test of rea

    —“Is there a foundation for reality? For us and the universe?”—

    The test of reality is theory, action, and consequence. While our reason and understanding may be incomplete, our actions exist and the universe responds by resisting and changing.

    There is only one test of reality: if one is willing to put a loaded gun to one’s head and pull the trigger to demonstrate one’s belief, then one can demonstrate honesty in one’s belief. If not then you are just lying for intellectual discount, for psychic benefit to the self esteem and confidence, for psychic benefit of virtue signaling to others, to signal shared fidelity in a shared deception with others for political purposes, or to engage in a deception – or all of the above.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:13:00 UTC

  • I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony

    I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony and child support, but not against fines for the person breaking the marriage. (spoken as a guy with multiple broken marriages. my first wife cheated. I broke my second marriage primarily due to my severe illness, and I broke my third marriage for reasons that I thought were her fault but were mine.) A women cannot regain her fertile years and a man cannot regain the proceeds of his excess production. But a woman can trade her vagina and personal care while a main can only trade his economic productivity and environmental care. Empirically speaking this leaves men at a great disadvantage. But either way, a divorce all but guarantees poverty in later life. IMO the millions I made were not ‘ours’ but mine. And had the court treated them as ‘mine’ then we would still be married. The central problem is that an individual cannot control the bad behavior of one’s spouse in modernity. As such we cannot have common property

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 10:05:00 UTC

  • I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your

    I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your definitions rest as premises, and you are simply evading them.

    EXISTENCE: persistent(real and noun), demonstrated(real and verb ) potential(possible knowledge demonstrated by action), ideal(meaningful but not real), supernatural(meaningful, not real, and false.).

    What I have demonstrated is that :

    1) Rights do not exist without others to appeal to in order to enforce them. We may want or need certain rights as potentially existential. But they only exist and you can only ‘have’ them once they are brought to potential through cooperation with others.

    2) That one can physically invest in something (demonstrate an interest). One can possess something. But no concept of ‘property’ can exist without others to exchange recognition of ownership with us. One possesses something by physical control over it. One owns something when others insure it – even if by only one to one reciprocity. One possesses property only when the institution exists. One possesses property rights only when one can exercise them in a court.

    3) The scope of possession is determined by your ability to defend it.

    The scope of property is determined by the market. Whether that be one other or a whole empire. The minimum scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is determined by the demand for authority (the state), the market for members, the market for polities – including survival against competitors.

    Now you may not realize this is an argument that the half truths of non aggression and private property and argumentation cannot survive, but that does not change the fact that they cannot survive this argument.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 20:58:00 UTC

  • It’s hard to reply because private property is not a definition of a cause. Pred

    It’s hard to reply because private property is not a definition of a cause. Predation, parasitism, retaliation, and disincentive for cooperation and risk are a cause.

    So, what is the operational definition (causal chain) of private property? Define private property. They can’t. Because then they have to explain how it’s possible. “Private property” like ‘principle’ is ‘god mode speech’. A declaration. An axiomatic command. But what brings private property into existence and why did we need to invent it?

    Non aggression against what? Against private property? Well that tells us nothing if you can’t define private property, demonstrate how it comes into existence, and how it SURVIVES competition from those who don’t want private property. If you cant create a model but just claim a good, you’re just a simpleton, right? SO you can describe or command or imply an ideal but like heaven, if you can’t find a way to bring it into existence and have it survive competition, it can’t exist, right?

    What I advocate can be described as ‘market fascism’. That is, markets in everything, and natural law that both forces markets in everything, and prohibits parasitism upon anything.

    So now we can choose from preferential (positive) commons, good(positive) commons and necessary(negative) commons like defense.

    So while you certainly cannot be compelled to pay for preferential commons (luxuries), you might have to pay for commons which you indirectly benefit from, and you must pay for commons that are necessary for your private property to exist.

    There are no borderlands. There is no crusoe’s island. There are no ‘ghettos’ that are not paid for by even MORE expensive commons. So how will you obtain and hold territory of sufficient productive value that others will not take it from you either because you are weak, or because, given your weakness, you house parasites and pirates an those who live off markets with expensive commons but do not pay for them?

    Principles are for children. Create a model so that you can’t use weasel words, ideals, and half truths that can’t survive competition.

    Jesse Caron

    Where did “cause” come into play, and why?

    You went to all that length under the assumption, apparently, that private property and its “creation” has never been explained. I’m a bit surprised, not just at that, but that you have also spoken so confidently about debunking ancap/libertarianism.

    Jesse Caron

    argue against principle as though it weren’t, implicitly from a (n albeit mistaken) principled position.

    That is what is known as performative contradiction.

    Curt Doolittle

    That’s not an argument right?

    I want to know your origins of private property because otherwise i don’t know your definition of private property, because most libertarians generally use ‘principles’ in order to obscure causes. It’s a technique of circular definition and mandatory ignorance.

    So, either you can define property by it’s causality our I have no idea what you’re talking about. (And I suspect neither do you.)

    I don’t argue from principle. I argue from existential possibility. But I suspect you don’t know the difference between logic(internal consistency), empiricism (external correspondence), and operationalism (existential possibility).

    Curt Doolittle

    What is the origin of private property, and why is it either desirable or necessary?

    Jesse Caron

    The cause of private property is calculation, simply, implying desire by impulsion, need by immediate and extended physical consumption(s), and psychic parsing of estimated personal/individual capital cost and utility/

    value, in turn comprising a resultant data/-set to be reinjected, as it were, into further calculative/industrial models.

    Let me guess though: that doesn’t satisfy your definition of “origin”.

    Curt Doolittle

    So you are retroactively applying the necessity of money and prices in calculation and planning argument to property?

    Hmmm….

    Engels wrote the seminal work on the origin of property in man.

    Butler Sheaffer wrote the seminal work on its universality.

    Haidt’s bibliography contains dozens of explanations of its evolutionary origin.

    Evolutionary Biology (Axelrod) explained its necessity (cooperation).

    And….

    As for calculation, Weber stated that this was the future of all disciplines:calculation.

    Simmel in his ‘philosophy of money’ provides the necessity of money.

    Mises restates Simmel as an argument against socialism in his failed attempt at operationalism in economics (praxeology).

    As far as I know the origin of possession is pre-human.

    The need to defend self.The need to possess territory and defend nests or offspring.

    The origin of the habit of property is necessary for any independent but cooperative organism to prevent disincentive to cooperate.

    The origin of the norm of private property is to keep assets within families during inheritance.

    The origin of the law of private property is to prevent retaliation cycles.

    The origin of contract is to allow cooperation and planning across time.

    The origin of money and prices is to allow calculation and commensurability.

    The origin of property RIGHTS is the common law by which disputes were settled

    The criteria of dispute settlement arose in parallel to the granularity of property (tribe > family > generation > Individual)..

    The criteria of dispute resolution at the individual level is investment.

    The test of transfer of property is reciprocity, not only preserving investments but requiring gains.

    So as far as I know the origin of property is the preservation of investment and the prevention of parasitism that leads to conflict in cooperating organisms. And that monetary calculation would be possible whether private, generational, familial, or tribal (common) property existed.

    And as far as I know you are attempting to create a circular argument by stating that calculation that was made possible by property is the cause rather than property was a consequence of the scope of cooperation given the probability of retaliation, that is necessary to preserve that cooperation, such that individuals preserve the incentive to invest and save.

    In other words, the origin of property is the commons at each incremental scale.

    It takes a bit of work to debunk libertarian nonsense but it’s still all nonsense.

    Jesse Caron

    You said “money”, not me. You conflate it to your advantage, and doubtless ubiquity of simplistic assent and continued attention.

    Someone gave you a like, there, I see.

    Both property, AND calculation, has and will exist without money. Neither require it for their practice and establishment. It s simply an implement and interesting analog therefor.

    You go to such lengths, only after failing to see your initial error of premise. Human condition, I guess. I’ve done it myself.

    Jesse Caron

    I said calculation from need, desire, through psychic parsing between them and resources available. Practice inevitably follows.

    Criticism inevitably follows that, as you expertly exemplify.

    Bit of advice. Let’s keep the comments short and sweet.

    Curt Doolittle

    Well, you know, short and sweet is the most common way of obscuring one’s ignorance by reliance on analogy and substitution rather than operational ‘proof’ of possibility. So analytic philosophy in operational prose is unfortunately, turgid, but it is also how we expose the deceptions of that branch of abrahamism we call marxism, and that sub-branch of marxism we call libertarianism. But lets move on with the analysis:

    —“property, AND calculation, has and will exist without money. “—

    Of course. now we have eliminated one possible error of interpretation or misrepresentation. Let’s move on.

    So, you suggest that the origin of “property” is the demand(need, want) for planning(calculating, “psychic parsing’) some series of actions to obtain something that will satisfy said demand(need, want)? (Resource).

    That seems to survive operational criticism.

    And by extension you suggest that the origin of property is the use of said property to obtain additional property? (Tool to transform, or resource to transform)

    That seems to survive operational criticism.

    But it tells us nothing of limits. And as far as I know the difference between possession, property, and property rights, is defined by limits. So…

    1) Property has nothing to do with denying others that which you have invested in obtaining?

    2) And is there some limit to (a) what needs you may want to fulfill, (b) the actions you can take to fulfill them, and (c) that which you need as a direct or intermediary step to acquire domain, use, or interest in? In other words, what is the scope of that which may become property?

    HYPOTHESIS

    I think that the correct term is “resource”, and possibly “possession”.

    I think that possession and property require us to deny others the use of it. As far as I know, we use the word property to mean some modicum of monopoly of control. Private property referring to monopoly of control. And shared, and common property to limited control.

    I demonstrably act to obtain an interest.

    I possess something or an interest in fact because I have physical control over it (deny it to others).

    We agree on the definition of interpersonal property

    We appeal to a third party for adjudication of property ‘rights’.

    We evolve the definition of normative property.

    We institutionalize a definition of Legal property.

    Now, lets see if we can define limits.

    Jesse Caron

    I find ignorance much better obscured in pleonasm, not to mention disingenuity.

    Short and sweet: why\how do we necessarily appeal to a third party for adjudication? If that’s true, then what is argumentation?

    Curt Doolittle

    So you avoid satisfying the question of limits. And I am stuck having to assume that you do so for the only reasons possible: Because articulating them would falsify the premise that the individual chooses rather than the market chooses the limits, which would then lead to the falsification of the entire rothbardian program. But that would take a while and I am fairly sure you will run away pretentiously before then.

    That said, I am trying to define terms in order to insure that no one is engaging in deception. And I don’t know how to answer your question unless we satisfy definition of terms.

    But let’s try. We appeal to a third person for adjudication of ‘rights’ under some hierarchy of contract. Otherwise we are not discussing ‘rights’ to be enforced by an insurer, but terms of agreement between people.

    Argumentation in the sense can only exist under the presumption of punishment for falsity, and nullification of contradiction. Because independent parties do not do so – they only negotiate, which does not limit (as does a court) truth, falsehood, or contradiction. This is why international law recognizes only reciprocity. THere is no method of enforcement of the demand for truth and non-contradiction in speech, only demonstration of transfer of title.

    (Although I do realize that many people have followed hoppe down this rather silly conflation of moral and legal.)

    REPEATING:

    I think that possession and property require us to deny others the use of it. As far as I know, we use the word property to mean some modicum of monopoly of control. Private property referring to monopoly of control. And shared, and common property to limited control.

    I demonstrably ACT to create an INTEREST.

    I POSSESS something or an interest in fact because I have physical CONTROL over it (deny it to others).

    Parties agree on the definition of interpersonal PROPERTY

    We appeal to a third party for adjudication of property ‘RIGHTS’.

    We evolve the definition of normative property.

    We institutionalize a definition of Legal property.

    CLOSING

    As far as I know the market determines the scope of property by the investment in increasingly abstract forms of interest. And this is because people RETALIATE against all increased forms of interest. And the law continuously expands to prevent retaliation against increased forms of interest, by outlawing the involuntary imposition of costs against such interests.

    Now, as far as I know, no species capable of voluntary cooperation and voluntary non-cooperation, and voluntary parasitism, and voluntary predation, and voluntary genocide can evolve (survive the evolutionary market) without retaliating against involuntary imposition of costs.

    As far as I know the origin of Law (rather than custom) is in the standardization of fees and punishments, in order to equilibrate differences in restitution between tribes with different customs.

    As far as I know international law relies on reciprocity because it is the only means possible of decidability independent of custom.

    As far as I know the market (or all evolutionary markets) determine the scope of property, and all such scopes of property are determined by investment in obtaining an interest.

    As far as I know an anarchic polity cannot form unless the scope of property is thus defined. And the reason the libertarian community does not define it as such is that it would falsify the libertarian program. Hence why property is not defined, and libertarians spin about doing nothing, achieving nothing, and in particular producing no intellectual works other than introductions.

    The cause of private property is the disproportionate rewards for voluntary cooperation and the necessity of retaliation against impositions upon investments in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate. Hence why humans demonstrate (costly) altruistic punishment (punishment at high cost to the self) because the value of voluntary cooperation is so high that it poses a threat too all when abridged.

    The problem is not eliminating the state. It’s in eliminating demand for the state. And the only way to eliminate demand for the state, is to supply the services of the state by non-state means.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 17:29:00 UTC

  • Scale incrementally destroys calculability(causality, auditability and accountab

    Scale incrementally destroys calculability(causality, auditability and accountability), ergo the only possible method of solving the problem of scale is a hierarchical division of political knowledge and labor, and a purely empirical and transparent method of accounting.

    While the technology for such accounting has only recently been possible, the left has opposed it because they cannot survive tests of causality and accountability. The math is pretty simple. Even with fiat money and fiat credit exaggerating employment, the number of people who cannot produce enough market returns to (a) own a home or apartment, (b) form and persist a marriage or family, and therefore accumulate capital, plus the decline in real income independent of price declines from shipping production overseas, provides us with empirical evidence of who is a viable and who is an unviable member of any polity. So the left fears it.

    That said, neighborhood, town/city, county/region/district, state/provinces, super-regional federations, and imperial federations, can all cooperate and resolve by trade negotiation what federal governments solve by forcible redistribution. That the superior organization is an intertemporal one (private polities run by persistent families) rather than a temporal one (elected officials) is probably obvious now that we have more than a century of experience with electoral governments of full enfranchisement.

    I might suggest we return to mixing the two models as in the parliamentary system, with a monarchy, regional nobility, and ‘digital’ markets for commons, where we divide up the classes. But my opinion is that the highest possible level where democracy has any merit is the regional. Beyond that commons are no longer ‘common’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 09:46:00 UTC

  • “PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF. It’s hard to reply because private pro

    “PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF.

    It’s hard to reply because private property is not a definition of a cause. Predation, parasitism, retaliation, and disincentive for cooperation and risk are a cause.

    So, what is the operational definition (causal chain) of private property? Define private property. They can’t. Because then they have to explain how it’s possible. “Private property” like ‘principle’ is ‘god mode speech’. A declaration. An axiomatic command. But what brings private property into existence and why did we need to invent it?

    Non aggression against what? Against private property? Well that tells us nothing if you can’t define private property, demonstrate how it comes into existence, and how it SURVIVES competition from those who don’t want private property. If you cant create a model but just claim a good, you’re just a simpleton, right? SO you can describe or command or imply an ideal but like heaven, if you can’t find a way to bring it into existence and have it survive competition, it can’t exist, right?

    What I advocate can be described as ‘market fascism’. That is, markets in everything, and natural law that both forces markets in everything, and prohibits parasitism upon anything.

    So now we can choose from preferential (positive) commons, good(positive) commons and necessary(negative) commons like defense.

    So while you certainly cannot be compelled to pay for preferential commons (luxuries), you might have to pay for commons which you indirectly benefit from, and you must pay for commons that are necessary for your private property to exist.

    There are no borderlands. There is no crusoe’s island. There are no ‘ghettos’ that are not paid for by even MORE expensive commons. So how will you obtain and hold territory of sufficient productive value that others will not take it from you either because you are weak, or because, given your weakness, you house parasites and pirates an those who live off markets with expensive commons but do not pay for them?

    Principles are for children. Create a model so that you can’t use weasel words, ideals, and half truths that can’t survive competition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:10:00 UTC

  • HE WHO BREEDS WINS, HE WHO FIGHTS RULES —“Can you show us where Hoppe says you

    HE WHO BREEDS WINS, HE WHO FIGHTS RULES

    —“Can you show us where Hoppe says you don’t need sovereignty for liberty?”— Rik Storey

    That depends upon whether you mean Sovereignty in Fact, or LEGAL sovereignty in court – sovereignty by permission. Hoppe means the latter. Same for kinsella. And it depends upon whether you wish to imagine you possess a condition of sovereignty, or whether you possess a condition of sovereignty in fact.

    I don’t engage in special pleading. When I say “Sovereignty” I mean “In Fact”, not in legal pretense.

    I haven’t criticized hoppe for his judgement of the morality or right-ness of outcomes (immigration etc) but for his kantian justificationism.

    One cant rely on argumentation ethics until AFTER property is already established since the choices are always fight/prey, flee/non-cooperation, and cooperate. The opposition if stronger does not give you the option he assumes.

    Hoppe’s “Liberty by Commune” strategy is as impossible as communes by both incentive and economic possibility. The opposition is too strong.

    Hoppe’s intersubjectively verifiable property is impossible as both incentive and economic possibility. the opposition is too strong.

    The scope of property is determined by the complexity of invsetment possible, and all sorts of ‘interests’ can be constructed – the institutional production of property rights themselves being an abstract interest we construct.

    What you are doing is simply taking the reverse-appropriation game as did Rothbard. You are redefining sovereignty as libertarianism when libertarianism (communism of the commons) was developed in opposition to sovereignty.

    Libertarianism and Sovereignty Differ substantially, in that libertarians make a positive claim to the limits of property (and engage in fraudulent prose), and Sovereignty

    I mean, until you answer the questions

    1 – “What limits to property are necessary for the survival of a polity in competition with other polities” (none)

    2 – “What is the reason for poly logical law NOT compatible with natural law of reciprocity OTHER than to conduct parasitism?” (none)

    3 – “Can a libertarian polity without mandatory commons survive competition and not simply host parasites and criminals if with the available incentives and the small number of people with libertarian sentiments.” (no.)

    4 – “What is the method of producing those necessary commons?”

    5 – “What is the method of suppressing disincentive to produce commons?”

    The problem is scale of polity and scale of competitors, in other words the problem is population density in relation to geographic productivity.

    Private government (monarchy), with markets for commons (parliaments) under direct democracy(equal interest), multi-house direct democracy(categorical/class interest) or economic democracy (unequal interest), with a professional warrior class and a universal militia (army) provide the means necessary for the formation of commons. But we must produce humans that will serve in that context through training. Whether you name that system of producing women and children “church” or “academy” is merely whether you advocate the deception of abrahamists or the honesty of education. And in that education whether you advocate the deception of the abrahamic conflationary scripture (fictionalism), or the honesty of pagan deflationary myth, literature, and history. As far as I an tell a professional priestly caste seeking compensation for deception(parasitism) is always and everywhere detrimental compared to a professional class that is taught rituals and pays for them himself (sacrifice).

    The church was designed purposefully to disempower the aristocracy so that the western empire could be controlled from the east. There is no liberty in the church. It is all slavery. which is why those areas longest with the church are the lowest trust, and those longest with the aristocracy are the highest.

    You have nowhere to go. I know your feelings tell you something. I know you want to protect those feelings and those investments. I certainly did not expect to end up in the intellectual position I’m in. But I can’t avoid it. Because I want a condition of sovereignty. And the only method possible in modernity and in an ever increasing world,

    You can’t un-invent gunpowder. You can’t uninvent nuclear weapons. The french revolution, napoleon, rothschild’ credit, and marxism/postmodernism destroyed europe. Because the princedoms could not militarily resist napoleon. Only the USA could afford to invent the atom bomb.

    SO what can we do today given density and power to construct a condition of sovereignty such that ordinary people can experience a condition of liberty?

    Small homogenous monarchic (semi-private) nation-states, natural law, market government, militia, and nuclear weapons, intertemporal borrowing and lending between the generations, a reformed (de-abrahamic) academy, and reciprocal insurance. Such states are impossible to defeat but lack the resources to expand.

    NO WORD GAMES

    I fight against all sorts of word games. Even well intentioned ones. “Libertarianism” evolved like marxism and postmodernism out of french libertinism and jewish separatism, in whch the normative and physical commons were rejected, and only private property and self protected. In other words, parasitism upon the commons. It’s an immaturity. a childhood. a continuing parasitism upon others. a failure to ‘pay one’s way’.

    Puritanism does NOT reject the commons, but instead, expands and enforces it.

    Americans imported this libertine technique particularly after the civil war. In the 50’s and 60’s H——-? (name is escaping me) started using ‘libertarian’. Rothbard took it from him and expanded upon it. Rothbardians then ‘claimed’ the term (appropriated it.). And they cast libertarianism = Rothbardianism.

    But again it’s another catholic > french > Jewish vector just like marxism, postmodernism, neo-conservatism.

    The european common law, the rights of anglo-saxons, the rights of englishmen, the rights of the american constitution always include the Thing (group, polity) in justice and politics, and the monarchy (chieftain) in war. There is no such ‘anti-social’ anything in european history.

    Had hayek not been so fascinated with the term liberty (freedom from), and correctly understood the term sovereignty (freedom to) then he might have prevented the current conflict over terminology.

    But in order to deny free riders on the commons any moral standing, I’m going to keep on message: the test is the scope of property and how you produce commons necessary for the creation and survival of a polity.

    And I’m going to stay on message that given the absence of borderlands, that the only way to obtain a condition of sovereignty is through the organized application of violence. And that those who do not commit to the organized application of violence are just free riding parasites upon those that do. And as such whatever rights they may obtain, will be rights by permission only.

    He who breeds wins. He who fights Rules.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 08:44:00 UTC

  • SORRY. WE PERCEIVE REALITY AND WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AT THE SCALE OF IT. That

    SORRY. WE PERCEIVE REALITY AND WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AT THE SCALE OF IT.

    That doesn’t mean that many people are not still the victims of solipsism who cannot separate the self from either others, or reality.

    —“…nobel laureates…”—

    I wouldn’t be too impressed with nobel laureates. We have a lot of wrong nobel laureates and some what were disastrous. Statements are false or not false regardless of who makes them.

    One observation that helps us is that detailed knowledge of a particular does not translate to general understanding. This is most common in economics where just about everything is increasingly counter-intuitive at each increasing level of precision.

    So that said, (a) any cognitive scientist of any skill will will state that the internally composited experience of any number of different observers of the same phenomenon will differ, but it is the commonality of the observation, deflated of that information supplied subjectively by the process of internal construction from fragmentary stimuli that provides test of our fragmentary perceptions of reality.

    That said, the cumulative observation of reality independent of fictions that we ourselves add by process of imagination turns out to represent reality both apprehensible by our senses and apprehensible by proxy through instrumentation far more capable than our senses.

    As far as we know all that increasing cognitive and sensory power of the human mind would do is increase the scale and accuracy of the model of reality we each imagine, but wha twe consider ‘reality’ (existence : that which persists independent of our actions and experience) is extremely accurate and increases in quality as our collective knowledge increases.

    There is no magic.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 14:14:00 UTC

  • Of course I advocate the aristocratic rule of law produces a semblance of libert

    Of course I advocate the aristocratic rule of law produces a semblance of liberty. (And that a militia and rule off law, natural law, property in toto creates sovereignty.)

    I argue, successfully, that the minimum scope of that law is non arbitrary , not voluntary, but necessary given market forces external to the polity, and that the minimum scope of property necessary to form, compete, and survive is not captured in the NAP, and that you like all libertarians avoid that discussion at all costs because it will result in classical liberalism if you try to answer it.

    I have shown that libertarians are adopting the jewish diasporic parasitic strategy, AND I have shown ( i think ) that libertarians are, like homosexuals, developmentally limited, AND that developmental limitation is due to pedomorphism (insufficient maturity).

    Now, it’s possible to defeat each of these arguments, and Rik Storey has defeated the argument (i think) that libertarians choose the feminine strategy of demanding their approval, because of effeminacy, but not because of insufficient maturity.

    In other words, the strategy remains the same.

    Like women: free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 17:37:00 UTC