Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.
Form: Argument
-
Moral Language As Attempted Fraud?
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. )I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Moral Language As Attempted Fraud?
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. )I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t
IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)- I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
- I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
- As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
- As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
- As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
- As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
-
Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t
IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)- I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
- I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
- As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
- As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
- As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
- As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
-
Nationalism vs Multiculturalism vs Racism
NATIONALISM vs MULTICULTURALISM vs RACISM (if you can manage this argument it’s awesome) Nationalism yes. Racism no.
Nationalism is a reproductive-familial, productive-economic, institutional-political, system that assists in the evolution of groups with genetic similarities and interests. Racism is bitching about other people instead of looking in the mirror and changing what you’re family, economy, and politicians are doing wrong. – Nationalism lets us love and help everyone at the expense of no one. – Multi-culturalism asks us to love and help some at the expense of others. – Racism asks us to hate everyone at the expense of everyone. I advocate for as much love as possible and as little harm as possible while assisting mankind in transcendence so that no harm is done to anyone, none need help, and love is not required by enjoyed. -
Nationalism vs Multiculturalism vs Racism
NATIONALISM vs MULTICULTURALISM vs RACISM (if you can manage this argument it’s awesome) Nationalism yes. Racism no.
Nationalism is a reproductive-familial, productive-economic, institutional-political, system that assists in the evolution of groups with genetic similarities and interests. Racism is bitching about other people instead of looking in the mirror and changing what you’re family, economy, and politicians are doing wrong. – Nationalism lets us love and help everyone at the expense of no one. – Multi-culturalism asks us to love and help some at the expense of others. – Racism asks us to hate everyone at the expense of everyone. I advocate for as much love as possible and as little harm as possible while assisting mankind in transcendence so that no harm is done to anyone, none need help, and love is not required by enjoyed. -
The Great Western Lie: Rights
THE GREAT WESTERN LIE: THAT PEOPLE POSSESS RIGHTS AND NOBLE VIRTUES, RATHER THAN THEY ACQUIRE RIGHTS BY DEMONSTRATING NOBLE VIRTUES The western aristocratic political model stopped improving the moment we started lying – that people possess rights and noble intent rather than that they can acquire rights by demonstrating virtues. For women the problem is more significant: meritocracy conflicts with their reproductive interests. Half of their children are in the lower half.
They cannot earn the franchise by fighting and it is against the tribe’s interests if they do other than reproduce. Our only choice is to pay the best women to reproduce and punish the worst if they do. ( this idea has legs ). The Chinese also converted from empirical management to moral management and stagnated. The Muslims and Mongols never developed an empirical order. The truth is enough if we demand it by force. -
The Great Western Lie: Rights
THE GREAT WESTERN LIE: THAT PEOPLE POSSESS RIGHTS AND NOBLE VIRTUES, RATHER THAN THEY ACQUIRE RIGHTS BY DEMONSTRATING NOBLE VIRTUES The western aristocratic political model stopped improving the moment we started lying – that people possess rights and noble intent rather than that they can acquire rights by demonstrating virtues. For women the problem is more significant: meritocracy conflicts with their reproductive interests. Half of their children are in the lower half.
They cannot earn the franchise by fighting and it is against the tribe’s interests if they do other than reproduce. Our only choice is to pay the best women to reproduce and punish the worst if they do. ( this idea has legs ). The Chinese also converted from empirical management to moral management and stagnated. The Muslims and Mongols never developed an empirical order. The truth is enough if we demand it by force. -
The Fraud of Tolerance
—Should we be tolerant? Should we tolerate intolerance? If we don’t, does that make us intolerant?—
We can always justify truthful speech. Why and how can we justify tolerance of anything other than truthful speech? Why should we justify falsehood, libel, slander, and risk (yelling fire in a theater for example). So, why did the founders of the constitution, attempting to transform anglo empirical law into a formal logic of social science, state that freedom of speech was permissible instead of that freedom of truthful speech was permissible, and that punishment for use of false speech was permissible? (Jefferson’s ambition was brilliant but incomplete.) The problem we have faced through history, is that because our justificationary language was based upon the false application of internal axiomatic moral language, we confused moral and legal justification with theoretic and survivable truth. And only with contemporary science did we discover that we cannot justify theoretic argument no matter what we do – we can only perform due thorough due diligence against falsehood in theoretic systems, including all of ethics, economics, and politics. We have just endured a century of pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit, on a scale not seen since the use of writing and roads to spread the conflation of law and religion we call monotheism. And it has cost us as much damage as that last deceit caused the roman empire, and western civilization, and the dark ages that followed, and all the painful reformations that we have born: anglo, french, german, and Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and now Muslim. But why have we been so susceptible to the lies, deceits, pseudosciences, and falsehoods of the 19th and 20th centuries? (media scale vs pulpit and book, and town crier and parchment scale) And how can we perform due diligence and warranty against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE Now, we can’t possibly cover this subject in detail as an interjection, but these are the six tests, the first three which are familiar to scientists, and the last possibly so. 1 – categorical consistency (identity)(non-conflation) 2 – logical consistency (internal consistency)(non-contradictory) 3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)(repeatable) 4 – operational consistency (existential possibility)(possible) 5 – moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfers)(moral) 6 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) The first novel test is 4-Operational consistency, meaning that we write in the objective language of action, as do the physical scientists, so that each step we discuss is subjectively testable, and existentially possible, and does not conflate actor intent, observer interpretation, and subjective experience, but simply a record of the actions taken. (This technique can be found by researching e-prime.) The second novel test objective morality under which we require that all transfers consist of productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange limited to externalities of the same criteria. This is definition of natural law: the law of non-imposition of costs that would cause resentment or retaliation which would disincentivize the process of cooperation, and limit the disproportionate returns of cooperation. So now that we know how to demand the same warranty of truthfulness in speech that we do in advertising, marketing, production, distribution, and trade, why do we not demand implicitly warranty against harm, by the demand for due diligence in the qualification of political speech, just as we over the centuries have incrementally demanded due diligence and warranty of the fitness for service of goods, services, and all other products? The only reason to do so is to continue to allow deceit. Or to fail to pay the cost of suppressing falsehood out of convenience. Or worse, —“Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught Truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? To engage in human husbandry.”—David Mondrus We can all tolerate uncomfortable truths. That the universe doesn’t care about us has been one discomfort after another. But why must we tolerate falsehoods, frauds, and deceits, pseudorationalism (obscurantism), and pseudoscience (deception) when we know how to demand due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading ( including pseudoscience), and deceit? Why must we give voice to error bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? If so, why do products and services require regulation? Do we not live in an information economy now, where it is information that is our primary product and primary good of consumption? THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL Here is what I am certain of: that the same delta in human achievement that resulted from the greek development of reason, and the suppression of mysticism in the commons; and that same delta in human achievement that resulted from the English invention of empiricism, and the suppression of mysticism and rationalism in the commons, would be brought to mankind by the development of truthfulness as a suppression for error, propaganda, and deception in the commons. And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail. Because, each of these groups profits from their lies. The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been. Now, imagine all the books written today, how many are false? Sure, it is true, that we need a different book to discuss the same idea, for every ten points of intelligence, from about 140 on down. But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not? What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust? We must tolerate the truth, productive competition, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of reproduction we call the family, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade we call the market economy, and the vagaries of competition for the production of commons that we call government. But there is no reason we must tolerate preventable harm by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deception, any more than we have tolerated murder, violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conquest by conversion, conquest by immigration, and conquest by war. So no. Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exchange for false status signals, fraudulently obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits. The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of the West: Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine