(Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights) [T]here are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert: 1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing) 2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation) 3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite. The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation. Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism. Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy). I do not use the term natural law for Propertarianism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing. We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism. Then we had an invasion of Christianity. Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience) Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.) Three waves of increasingly articulate lies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud. Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.
Form: Argument
-
Unpleasant Truth: Hiring a Female CEO is a Negative Indicator
[T]he primary reason that women and minorities are put into power because they lack the ability to alter the status quo through the construction of stress-bearing loyalties. Boards hire them as weak placeholders – a strategy of delay an wait. The assignment of a woman to a leadership position in a troubled company is an admission by the board that they cannot come to consensus on a strategy, or that they have exhausted available strategies, and that further investment in the firm will perform negatively. They are aware that a woman and minorities will be willing to take the position due to the status perk of obtaining a rare executive position even while winding a company down, while men will not find status in such an effort, but failure. They are also aware of the positive PR that such appointments generate, and the negative that white male appointments generate under duress: in other words, the media will criticize a white male on his abilities, and laud the progressive appointment of a woman or minority in the hope that he or she succeeds. So the company is buying resistance to criticism by the press. Women and minorities will readily walk off the glass cliff because they are desperate for status from other women and minorities for having obtained a rare position. Men of equal ability will evaluate taking such a position as career ending and avoid it. Women having held such a status position can hold that status even after their failure. Men having failed will carry the stigma of failure, not the status of having obtained a rare position. So the long term consequences of an executive position in a declining company vary by gender and race. The glass ceiling exists because women are less loyal to their faction under stress than men of equal abilities. Meaning that men view women as less trustworthy. So, men view women (subconsciously) as untrustworthy under duress, if not weak allies at all times, and thereby untrustworthy in general. Conversely, this weakness means that the status quo will not be upset, and further confusion created if a woman or minority is appointed. Lastly, any professional c-level executive is very well aware prior to taking a position, of the prospects for the company. These things may seem complex to non-professionals, but in general it’s a matter of talent, alliances, incentives, assets, debt and time. I’ve been writing and talking about this topic for two decades now. Outside of obvious industries selling consumer products to women, boards choose women execs as an admission of failure. (Xerox, HP, Yahoo…) Even Meg Whitman was a placeholder for the two founders. Truth hurts. Science is uncomfortable. But it is what it is. We are unequal. And that’s a good thing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Unpleasant Truth: Hiring a Female CEO is a Negative Indicator
[T]he primary reason that women and minorities are put into power because they lack the ability to alter the status quo through the construction of stress-bearing loyalties. Boards hire them as weak placeholders – a strategy of delay an wait. The assignment of a woman to a leadership position in a troubled company is an admission by the board that they cannot come to consensus on a strategy, or that they have exhausted available strategies, and that further investment in the firm will perform negatively. They are aware that a woman and minorities will be willing to take the position due to the status perk of obtaining a rare executive position even while winding a company down, while men will not find status in such an effort, but failure. They are also aware of the positive PR that such appointments generate, and the negative that white male appointments generate under duress: in other words, the media will criticize a white male on his abilities, and laud the progressive appointment of a woman or minority in the hope that he or she succeeds. So the company is buying resistance to criticism by the press. Women and minorities will readily walk off the glass cliff because they are desperate for status from other women and minorities for having obtained a rare position. Men of equal ability will evaluate taking such a position as career ending and avoid it. Women having held such a status position can hold that status even after their failure. Men having failed will carry the stigma of failure, not the status of having obtained a rare position. So the long term consequences of an executive position in a declining company vary by gender and race. The glass ceiling exists because women are less loyal to their faction under stress than men of equal abilities. Meaning that men view women as less trustworthy. So, men view women (subconsciously) as untrustworthy under duress, if not weak allies at all times, and thereby untrustworthy in general. Conversely, this weakness means that the status quo will not be upset, and further confusion created if a woman or minority is appointed. Lastly, any professional c-level executive is very well aware prior to taking a position, of the prospects for the company. These things may seem complex to non-professionals, but in general it’s a matter of talent, alliances, incentives, assets, debt and time. I’ve been writing and talking about this topic for two decades now. Outside of obvious industries selling consumer products to women, boards choose women execs as an admission of failure. (Xerox, HP, Yahoo…) Even Meg Whitman was a placeholder for the two founders. Truth hurts. Science is uncomfortable. But it is what it is. We are unequal. And that’s a good thing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Politicians Are and Unnecessary Evil
[W]e no longer need politicians and representatives, and no longer need democratic assent to pass something, and to divide a budget equally, and to vote with money where it is required. In fact, all politicians do is to create hazards. So given that distance no longer impacts ability to cooperate and communicate in real time; and given that concentration of politicians in one place merely creates a perfect environment for lobbying and corruption; and given that running for office produces nothing but negative externalities exacerbating corruption; it seems much wiser to let anyone post proposals (contracts), to reject any proposal of involuntary transfer(propertarianism), to hold debates in public over them with the best public intellectuals contributing to the discourse; to require truthful speech in such deliberation (testimonialism), and to select a jury by lot from each house to spend those budgets, and enter into those contracts. Politicians are an unnecessary evil in a world of instantaneous communication.
-
Politicians Are and Unnecessary Evil
[W]e no longer need politicians and representatives, and no longer need democratic assent to pass something, and to divide a budget equally, and to vote with money where it is required. In fact, all politicians do is to create hazards. So given that distance no longer impacts ability to cooperate and communicate in real time; and given that concentration of politicians in one place merely creates a perfect environment for lobbying and corruption; and given that running for office produces nothing but negative externalities exacerbating corruption; it seems much wiser to let anyone post proposals (contracts), to reject any proposal of involuntary transfer(propertarianism), to hold debates in public over them with the best public intellectuals contributing to the discourse; to require truthful speech in such deliberation (testimonialism), and to select a jury by lot from each house to spend those budgets, and enter into those contracts. Politicians are an unnecessary evil in a world of instantaneous communication.
-
LIARS AND PROXY LIARS: TESTIMONIALISM IS THE CURE QUESTION: Mustn’t one knowingl
LIARS AND PROXY LIARS: TESTIMONIALISM IS THE CURE
QUESTION: Mustn’t one knowingly lie to be labelled a liar?
ANSWER: Yes under justification, and No under Criticism.
Liars? Like the Frankfurt school lies. Like women lie. It is hard to know if they know better, or just follow the commands of their genetic puppeteer, just as the idiocy of christian suicidal altruism is hard to determine if one is a puppet, a habituator of the lies of predecessors, or a liar in one’s self.
So by your question you would not punish a man for lying for having failed to perform due diligence on his statements, whereas I would.
A proxy liar is still a liar.
Failure to perform due diligence allows one to propagate lies. Requiring due diligence prevents the propagation of lies.
One can teach people supposed truths. Or one can teach people how to launder falsehoods.
A critical rationalist can not hold the former position with intellectual consistency.
(In other words, the Brits in the LA movement are arguing an intellectual contradiction.)
(So forgiving lying by proxy is also an expansion of postmodernism.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:02:00 UTC
-
AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS. The reason that Americans can
AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS.
The reason that Americans can trust you by default in business is because our courts will punish the HELL out of you if you act in an untrustworthy fashion. American courts largely function as lie detectors more so than truth detectors.
This is what separates Common law courts from Napoleonic law courts: There is (or should be) no difference between state and civic action; and we punish the hell out of violators, rather than regulate actions.
That this produces superior economic velocity for the middle and upper classes while allowing the lower classes enough rope to constantly hang themselves is not obvious. For this reason – difficulty for the proletarians – I do not see the necessity of a monopoly homogenous set of rules of operation.
If I am willing to operate by aristocratic (outcome based) common law, then I should be able to. If I prefer to have the protection of regulatory law (as instruction and guidance relieving the burden of knowledge) then I should be able to enjoy it.
But despite propter-hoc regulatory law, or post-hoc common law, in neither of these cases are the laws of dispute resolution in matters of property different. What differs is the form of insurance I expect in defense of them.
This differs from polycentric law, in the sense that there is no difference whatsoever in law, only difference in the requirements of the insurer. As such, the governmental ‘houses’ function as insurance agencies – insurers of last resort – rather than polycentric legal houses.
This difference separates Propertarianism from Libertinism (Cosmopolitan libertarianism) permanently. There is but one law of cooperation necessary for the preservation of cooperation as preferable to predation: non-parasitism (non-imposition of costs). There is but one positive expression insuring the victim: property rights to property en-toto. And therefore all conflict is decidable, and all law universal regardless of polity. But the means by which we insure one another, and the contracts we enter into one another, are something quite different. (We merely lie and equate legislation and regulation with law so that the government can claim false legitimacy for its actions. One can violate a political contract, but that is a contract violation not a legal violation. Whether one can issue regulation is not a question as long as it meets testimonial and propertarian criteria, and citizens have universal standing in juridical defense – which they don’t have today.)
The classical liberal model of houses that represent the interests of the classes and force exchanges between the classes was very close. The first mistake was investing power in the parliament rather than in the houses of parliament, and the second mistake was failing to add a house of labor and a house of dependents so that we could conduct trades between the newly enfranchised classes. Just as the British error was its failure to add a house of colonies to the government, rather than equal participation in the parliament.
SIMPLE RULES FOR COMPLEX LAW
There is but one cause of law, that is the facilitation and preservation of the incentive of cooperation and non-retaliation. There are no other causes of law other than the principle of non-parasitism that preserves the incentive of cooperation and non-retalitation.
There is but one law and that is property en toto. There i
All legislation consists of contract. No legislation consist of law.
All legislation must apply universally. All standing must mirror any application.
All legislation may only carry forward. No legislation may be retroactively imposed.
All legislation must consist of voluntary transfers. No legislation may force involuntary transfer.
All regulation is refinement of legislation. No regulation may extend beyond its governing legislation.
All regulation consists of contract modifications. No regulation may violate contract provisions.
All propertarian and testimonial contracts assent. No non-propertarian, non-testimonial contracts may assent.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 07:22:00 UTC
-
POLITICIANS ARE AN UNNECESSARY EVIL We no longer need politicians and representa
POLITICIANS ARE AN UNNECESSARY EVIL
We no longer need politicians and representatives, and no longer need democratic assent to pass something, and to divide a budget equally, and to vote with money where it is required. In fact, all politicians do is to create hazards. So given that distance no longer impacts ability to cooperate and communicate in real time; and given that concentration of politicians in one place merely creates a perfect environment for lobbying and corruption; and given that running for office produces nothing but negative externalities exacerbating corruption; it seems much wiser to let anyone post proposals (contracts), to reject any proposal of involuntary transfer(propertarianism), to hold debates in public over them with the best public intellectuals contributing to the discourse; to require truthful speech in such deliberation (testimonialism), and to select a jury by lot from each house to spend those budgets, and enter into those contracts. Politicians are an unnecessary evil in a world of instantaneous communication.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 06:34:00 UTC
-
Can you have a competing market in the same territory? You can as long as you ha
Can you have a competing market in the same territory? You can as long as you have legal decidability.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 07:33:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642239638921445376
Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641974893295210496
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641974893295210496
-
Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE? (f
Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE?
(from reddit)
PERSON’S REPLY
—‘Doolittle’s ethics are descriptive’— AND —‘his morality is objective’—
CURT’S RESPONSE
Understanding this requires understanding three concepts:
1) The necessity of preserving the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, by preserving the incentive to cooperate, by suppression of the imposition of costs, that would eliminate the incentive to cooperate – is purely objective. Humans instinctually evolved to disproportionately retaliate against ‘cheaters’ for this reason – those proto-humans who didn’t are gone, and those who did survived.
2) Local rents (imposed costs), normative exchanges (norms), evolve in every society (myths, rituals, norms). Some of which are neutral (attending rituals), some of which are objectively moral (caring for orphans of relations) and some of which are objectively immoral (slavery,and its many lighter variants.)
3) However, whenever there is a conflict between individuals or groups with different norms (contracts moral and immoral), all such conflicts are objectively decidable between them. In other words, groups may construct whatever internal contracts that they choose to, but between groups those contracts do not apply – only objective morality does: the non-imposition of costs stated as the limit of transfers to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of unproductive, uninformed, unwarranted transfer by externality.
So this definition of morality is **descriptive** in that it is universally demonstrated by humans as retaliation against thieves, and as groups as disproportionate retaliation against ‘cheaters’; correspondent with demands of evolutionary biology; correspondent with logical necessity, provides universal decidability in matters of retaliation; is a sufficient basis for universal law of conflict resolution (and loosely reflects the history of the western common law); and therefore is a sufficient basis for eliminating demand for an authority to render discretionary judgments in the absence of such decidability.
Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:31:00 UTC