Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN You don’t really understand the debat

    CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN

    You don’t really understand the debate of the war period, postwar period, any more than our debate in the present do you? lol..

    I realize you are desperately trying to frame this discourse to suit your present knowledge but let’s point out a few things you’re doing besides that framing, the perpetuation of the error of the era (induction), reliance upon antique thought (set operations, idealisms), using conflation (‘meaning/justification’ vs ‘truth/testimony’) all of which are archaic (and false) methods of investigation of anything other than scripture.

    1) When the positivists used the term “meaningful”, (giving us an exceptional demonstration of a failure of grammar), they meant meaningful *for what purpose*? (Induction).

    2) What was the difference between Carnap and company’s position and Popper’s position? (Trying to solve the problem of induction vs Popper’s “Induction does not exist”.) (Not that Taleb isn’t beating this dead horse daily.)

    3) What was Popper’s alternative to induction? (Verisimilitude, or more correctly: “market competition”).

    4) What has the scientific field adopted as their method of exploration? (market competition).

    5) What does a Bayesian network accomplish (accounting of marginal measurements producing market competition between successes and failures – the same as our brains do)

    6) Why can’t a formal grammar of science be produced and why has the formal grammar of logic been a dead end except for training people to detect error? (because there is no closure, and because induction does not exist, and because the only unclosed vocabulary and grammar is operational language.)

    7) What does an hypothesis, theory, law consist of? (A rule of arbitrary precision used as a search algorithm for opportunities to apply recipes – sequences of operations. Forming a market competition between general rule of opportunity discovery and application-recipe) (this is all the mind is capable of so it is what we do).

    8) What is the principle innovation of the post darwinian era: the abandonment of ‘mathiness’ and justification and the universal application of market competition between positive language and demonstrated action. (we call this, dynamic stochastic equilibrium in economics, and various names not limited to fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics in physics.)

    9) What do we do in court to determine who is at greater fault? (conduct a market competition between the offense and the defense by reduction of arguments to the sequence of incentives and operations).

    In a wonderful case of PAINFUL IRONY you are able to ‘get away’ with your error because you failed to define the term ‘meaning’ in a complete sentence in operational language. “I have a question: are untestable statements meaningful meaningful for the purpose of induction?”

    Well of course, no, because induction (guessing) only assists us in free association for the purpose of discovering opportunities which must later be subject to falsification (attempts to falsify), and through this continuous competition we discover more information (recipes for action, and opportunities for discovery), and with that information more competitions to run between language (search) and operation (action).

    So I continue the Poppertian program of “critical rationalism” (under which popper had no empirical evidence, or he would have discovered that decidability in scientific investigation is and can be, and is, determined by cost benefit) by expanding where he failed to ,from physical to social to cognitive sciences as “Critical Naturalism”. And I apply this critical naturalism to the field with the greatest scope of testing claims: law. Because law only comes into account under material disputes, and only admits that which is testifiable, and searches for incentives whether testifiable or not.

    The positivist debate was not merely ideal or technical but was an attempt to ether further (frankfurt) or constrain (vienna) marxism (theft), and the incentives tell us what the undecidability of their argument failed to: fraud. And this is the purpose of the law: Can we find criteria under which the untestifiable yet asserted to be testifiable is not a cover for a falsehood, fraud, theft or harm? ( Where ‘true’ = testimony(speech) that correspondent with reality(existence) or a possibly-shared experience of existence.) The positivist debate was a ‘victorian’ if not ‘priestly’ discourse in which the means motive and opportunity were unstated. Because we had no evidence of yet what would occur under marxism/socialism (or today’s postmodernism) to counter the rationalizations of the marxists (frankfurt school) who were, in all things, attempting to use the ancient tools of greek platonism/socratic skepticism, and jewish pilpul/critique, as had many previous generations of theologians and philosophers (textualists), to conduct a fraud, when there words were promissory (rational) not testifiable (scientific and warrantable).

    It is far harder to think in equilibrial terms in all walks of life, and all disciplines in thought, but this is the current model of all phenomenon from math (see Wolfram’s new math of complex operations), computer science (operational logic), sentience (cognition to defeat entropy), to discourse (language to defeat entropy) to economics(cooperation to defeat entropy), to biology (life defeating entropy), to chemistry (limited to entropy) to subatomic through macro physics(producing entropy). And this is why the discipline of philosophy is being unfunded and combined with theological departments, because other than the use of basic logic to train people to detect errors, the program of the 19th-20th by which philosophers sought to convert their discipline into a science, has been replaced by computer science and what used to be called ‘cognitive science’, in order to end the previous generation’s failure to adapt to computer science, and now failure to adapt to the study of the brain. The purpose of the study of philosophy is largely the study of middle class rebellion against the ruling class’s application of law or theology, and aside from the “scientists” aristotle, machiavelli, locke, smith, hume, darwin, maxwell, menger, pareto etc, they are little more than a catalog of human error and deceit, with The Rabbinical Jews, Plato/Socrates, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Mohammed, Kant, Marx, and now Derrida et all the most

    Metaphysics is nothing other than the study of cognitive processes. It is an ancient pseudoscience for the simple reason that Aristotle did the best he could, but knew too little and had no model, by which to discuss the operational construction of cognitive phenomenon from the stimulation of the nervous system, and the continuous recursive interaction between those stimuli and memory, producing a continuous stream of prediction, over which we have some modicum of control – and in particular, given our ability to use language, can calculate using language (names of categories) to perform comparisons that other life forms we are aware of are unable to do. However, in all our language, every bit of it, every name of every category of name (noun, verb, adjective, adverb…) consists of nothing more than an n-dimensional network of constant and contingent and inconstant relations between our senses, in a fascinating and beautiful complexity the scale of which is only matched by the stars themselves.

    The most parsimonious terms we have to describe these networks are Models (descriptive operational simulations), Networks of largely Compatible Paradigms (current information products), Competing incompatible Paradigms (new market entries), Theories and Hypotheses (new market features), Norms, Presumptions, and intuitions (established markets), and a field of ‘Grammars’ of deflationary to descriptive to inflationary to fictionalisms – and there is every bit of evidence to suggest that we can produce one most parsimonious paradigm in the grammar of constant relations we call operations, and their constant relations to existential reality.

    So when you say “an alternative metaphysics” this means an alternative physical cognitive ability. When you say “an alternative ontology” the question is one of competitive parsimony, correspondence, consequence, and incentive.

    No more sophisms. Science is the universal language of truth, even if there are a host of allegorical grammars for the communication of meaning. The question is what is the difference in meaning (information, consequence, and incentive) between the more testifiable, and every other alternative.

    And for any alternative, what is one’s incentive to produce that alternative? Is it the cost of reformation of one’s networks? Or is it the benefits one obtains through the use of those networks to create fraud?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:41:00 UTC

  • STRAW MAN: SO, LEARN HOW TO ATTACK THE ARGUMENT. @IvanTheHeathen Don’t hold back

    https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdfANOTHER STRAW MAN: SO, LEARN HOW TO ATTACK THE ARGUMENT.

    @IvanTheHeathen

    Don’t hold back. You deprive me of good criticism and others of similar doubt from an advocate.

    So let’s dance, I’ll correct you, educate the audience, and create a test of falsifiability for anyone attempting criticism.

    WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY DEBATING?

    So first, yes, you’re making an inductive rather than informed argument – meaning a ‘seems like’ argument, and you haven’t once demonstrated awareness of the central arguments or addressed them.

    Secondly, you are making an accusation that is not only the OPPOSITE of my line of reasoning, but in doing so demonstrating the problem I seek to correct.

    So, lets educate you on the bare minimum of the content so you have some idea what you’re arguing against other than your imaginary straw man.

    PROBLEM STATEMENT

    How do we prohibit ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms of sophism in all its forms, pseudoscience in all its forms, and supernaturalism in all its forms, and outright deceits, from commercial, financial, economic, political, legal, and academic (pedagogical) speech, by use of the law and its market competition, while not limiting or prohibiting truthful speech? In particular, how do we prevent both platonic sophisms of idealism, and abrahamic shophisms of pilpul, critique, and their applications in theology, philosophy, math and the logics, interpretation of scripture, text, history, and law, and their reformation as the pseudoscience of marxism, the sophism of postmodernism, and the denialism of feminism?

    PROPOSITION

    1) It is possible to complete the scientific method such that any TESTIMONY given in defense of an accusation of either falsehood or ir-reciprocity or both, that imposes a cost on the ‘informational commons’ – the commons upon which the public depends for commercial, financial, economic, legal, political and academic(pedagogical) information – has failed a test of due diligence against ignorance(pretense of knowledge), error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms and deceits.

    2) it is possible to do so by this argument:

    Whereas man defends investment of:

    1. Time,

    2. Effort,

    3. Resources,

    4. Forgone opportunity

    5. Reproductive Proximity

    And Where defended investments consist of:

    1. Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.

    2. Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.

    3. Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.

    4. Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.

    5. Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.

    6. Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.

    7. Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.

    8. Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

    And Where reciprocity consists of:

    1. Productive

    2. Fully informed

    3. Warrantied

    4. Voluntary transfer

    5. Free negative externality.

    And Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of no less than:

    1. Murder

    2. Harm

    3. Theft

    —

    4. Fraud (in all forms)

    5. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons)

    7. Blackmail

    8. Rent Seeking.

    9. Conspiracy

    —

    10. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well)

    11. Conversion (Poisoning the well)

    —

    12. Immigration,

    13. Predatory Warfare

    13. Conquest

    14. Genocide

    And Where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in:

    Speech

    1. Intent to lie.

    2. Intent to deceive.

    3. Failure of due diligence against falsehood

    4. Carrier of falsehoods, lies and deceits.

    5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies and deceits.

    6. A genetic predisposition to lie and deceive. And Where due diligence must expose pretense against: 1. Ignorance and error.

    2. bias and wishful thinking

    3. suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing. 4. fictionalisms (the sophisms, pseudosciences, and supernaturalisms)

    5. outright deceits.

    And Where truthful speech consists of that which survives tests of the hierarchy of dimensions conceivable by man:

    1. categorically consistent (identity)

    2. internally consistent (logic)

    3. externally correspondent (empirical)

    4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)

    5. rationally consistent (rational choice)

    6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)

    7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)

    8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)

    And where:

    And where both Display Word and Deed are limited by:

    9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.

    10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    Therefore:

    1. If speech survives the dimensional tests of consistency of dimensions conceivable by man, is limited to that for which words and deeds are open to restitution, and where such speech is warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution either directly or by insurer, then due diligence against falsehood and reciprocity has been made, and no crime has been committed.

    You can try to falsify that line of reasoning.

    CLOSING COMMENT

    In most reductive form this (epistemology), the grammars, and operational grammar, are the basis of the work. If you can understand this then the rest of the work follows.

    What are the grammars? The equivalent of the periodic table for speech. In particular, operational grammar provides the means of constructing well formed statements, sentences, collections of sentences, and summary sentences. The grammars diagram (I am not sure how current it is, not very, but close enough ) https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdf

    (Continued…)

    THE PROGRAM IS ENTIRELY FALSIFICATIONARY

    —“You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms.”—

    Nope. The opposite. Actually I make use of tests of due diligence such that if one pretends knowledge that cannot be explained with a sequence of testable operations, one cannot possibly warranty one is uttering truthful speech, because one cannot therefore possibly warranty that he knows of that which he speaks.

    You can try to falsify that statement

    In fact, search my site for the word ‘verify’. If you find it at all, either (a) someone else said it that I’m debunking, or (b) as criticism of its use in general. Conversely search for the frequency of the word ‘justificationism’ to get a measure of how frequently I criticize justificationary thought.

    This pretty much eradicates everything you’ve said. But let’s continue.

    OPERATIONALISM IN SPEECH IS A MEANS OF FALSIFICATION

    Operational semantics (vocabulary) and grammar, in complete sentences, like all other mathematical, logical, algorithmic grammars, produces well form statements that are testable – or not. The reason being that *operations are sympathetically testable whether they involve thought, word, or deed. In other words, operations produce universal commensurability and testability in testimonial speech.

    You can try to falsify that statement.

    THE OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT

    You didn’t read or understand my arguments that the movement failed because they had only discovered falsification and failed to grasp the extent of it.

    In other words “logics don’t ‘prove’ anything, except a negative. Their only positive use is to limit the range of falsification to marginal indifference”. A statement which is fairly easy to demonstrate in mathematics: general rules of arbitrary precision given scale independence. From the square root of two to infinitesimals the best we can do is approximate to the point of marginal indifference in application (action in reality).

    You can try to falsify any of those statements.

    REGARDING POSITIVISM:

    —”(1) People who have read work in the philosophy of science written after 1940 generally don’t adopt hard-line positivist positions; or, if they do, at least make some attempts to answer criticisms of that view made since 1940.

    (2) You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms. (3) Therefore, you probably haven’t read the relevant work.”—

    Please find where I have a ‘positive’ or ‘view’ in the ‘philosophy of science’, when every single method I use is exclusively falsificationary.

    NOW WHAT DEMARCATES SCIENCE (due diligence) FROM NON-SCIENCE(failure of due diligence)?

    Testifiability.

    Try to falsify that statement.

    HISTORY? WHERE DID SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ORIGINATE?

    In the application of practical court law of tort to practical testimony in the physical sciences. This is why the principle theorists from Aristotle to Bacon to Hayek have either begun or ended with the law.

    AND WHY?

    Of the domains of inquiry only the law tests every possible dimension of human cognition, action, and testimony, and unlike the other high degrees available (medicine, philosophy, theology) it was the only one with a feedback loop.

    Try to falsify that statement.

    AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER?

    Law (natural law of reciprocity, and the common law of tort, not command, legislation or regulation) only DECIDES matters of conflict. It is falsificationary. You can prove nothing. Only falsify claims. Which is what the court consists of and which frustrates the average individual who is incognizant of the function of the law.

    SO WHAT’S THE HIERARCHY OF ‘SCIENCES’

    (however we define them), from least number of dimensions testable to most number of dimensions testable, which science has the greatest demand on those claims that are scientific? Law.

    Try to falsify that statement.

    (continued…)

    REGARDING

    —“…it seems very difficult for you to grasp that the alternatives to empirical means of acquiring knowledge are not necessarily arbitrary, merely on account of their being distinct from empirical means. This is a false dichotomy. And more importantly, there isn’t always a clear dividing line between empirical and non-empirical knowledge.”—

    This is a positivist statement. Conversely, no means of identifying an opportunity (hypothesis, theory, law) has any bearing on its truthfulness (survivability from falsification). In the series “free association, hypothesis, theory, law, metaphysical presumption” all potential “knowledge” which we must define before we say much about it, must survive the market tests of falsification by reasonableness(hypothesis), falsification by testing(theory), falsification by market application(strong theory or law), and falsification by persistent presumption(metaphysical value judgement).

    So apparently you have failed to grasp that no means of acquiring STORIES ( categories, hypotheses/theories, paradigms(networks of theories), ontologies (networks of paradigms) of changes in state convey DECIDABILITY in matters of dispute.

    And apparently you can’t tell the difference between Meaningful(communicable), Reciprocal(agreement), Truthful(warrantied against falsehood), and Decidable statements. And the identification of opportunity (meaningful) and the prohibition on the seizure of opportunity (Law), or the difference between the possible, the preferable, the good, the truthful, and the decidable.

    Or the difference between the demand for decidability depending upon who is warrantying the display word or deed: you, you and dependents, you and associates, you and the public.

    And you probably haven’t picked up yet (despite my demonstrations) on the technique of using series to prevent errors of induction by conflation.

    If you need that explained to you I will point you to detail.

    REGARDING

    —“What this means is that it’s not possible to empirically verify any single statement in isolation,”—

    We don’t verify anything. We falsify it. We falsify it by the full set of dimensions (coherence), and we falsify it most often by Means, Motive, and Opportunity. (Although, due to malincentives of police and prosecutors, motive may be extended to intent as a matter of reform.)

    You don’t prove your innocence. The prosecution’s function is to falsify your innocence. You are innocent until your innocence is falsified. Many cases are undecidable. Courts are, by their nature forced into decisions. This drives the market for false claims to the margins.

    You can try to falsify that statement.

    WHY DON”T I QUOTE CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS

    As far as I know the postwar argument is reducible to:

    Whether a method exists at all (via positiva, no).

    Semantic problems given disciplinary paradigms. (Context)

    The problem of limits of instrumentation (observation and measurement)

    The problem of the limits of information from limits of instrumentation (underdetermination)

    The limits of mathiness in the absence of frame (descriptive vs constructive)

    The economics of testing. (Utility and efficiency)

    The problem of declining returns and increasing costs.

    Decidability in choice of avenue (almost always economic)

    Role of scientists in society

    Ethics

    If there is something more meaningful (Say, Strawson, whose work I build upon) then please state what it is. But the point of demarcation is positive vs negative: what to do to obtain information vs what to do to perform due diligence and warranty your speech about that information.

    As far as I know the ‘scientific method’ consists of due diligence and a warranty of that due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, fictionalism and deceit in the speech claims that we write or utter.

    In other words, the scientific method consists of whatever is necessary to perform that due diligence, in whatever field of inquiry, at current instrumental and logical scale, and have it survive tests of consistency in those categories of expression possible by man.

    You can try to falsify that statement.

    As we say, “scientists pay no mind to philosophers of science, it is an art (craft) of measurement in an effort to remove our ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking (and sometimes deceit).

    They have no choice but to pay mind to the law.

    You can try to falsify that statement.

    SUMMARY

    It is extremely difficult for the vast majority of people to think in falsificationary terms, and to ‘unlearn’ justificationism. It is a smaller set of people that can abandon continuous appeals to intuition and produce streams of calculation (grammars). You are no different. There is a reason software folk have an easier time: they are already working in operational language at all times, and database normalization forces disambiguation. But for literary folk in general who neither specialize in applied math, engineering, software, the hard sciences or law.

    CLOSING

    In my ‘opinion’, you are just another drive-by idiot. One more moron in the long line of people who reads a few bits of what its he most revolutionary thought in a century and you waste my time defending what exists in EXTREMIS thousands of pages of text, by using the (cheap) vehicle of the internet to shame me into educating you in defensive duress, rather than you educating yourself before you speak in ignorance.

    You are not too stupid to understand. You may lack intellectual honesty, although I don’t detect it. You may like Orwoll lack Agency which is the most common weakness that cannot be over come. You may lack will or courage to discover the truth regardless of costs, and therefore simply seek to defend your investments (priors).

    But if you have an argument against the rough outline I have written here let us hear it. Because I have spent a long time in every field, and with every logical, empirical, moral question trying to defeat it and I can’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-26 10:25:00 UTC

  • GENERAL PREFACE TO CRITICS AND WOULD BE CRITICS There are frequent criticisms of

    GENERAL PREFACE TO CRITICS AND WOULD BE CRITICS

    There are frequent criticisms of my work. I post them. Often. There are criticisms of preference, pragmatism, or probability. But, as yet, no one has offered any material criticism of the work. No one.

    All I get are pragmatisms from:

    (a) young men who are very smart and prefer authoritarianism – because they have no experience organizing anything – even a family – at any scale,

    (d) a range of men who cling to the hope of (authoritarian) religious restoration (not knowing how lucky we are to have escaped it.),

    (b) nat-soc’s who prefer intolerant authoritarianism,

    (c) young men who cling to the possibility of anarchism,

    (e) the room temperature IQ crowd that attempts to participate or observe a discourse that is beyond their knowledge and ability, but is too impatient to wait for the full constitutional changes and the policies that arise from them that would bring them relief.

    The only extant criticisms I can find, despite trying everything, are:

    (a) people want a positive religion(supernaturalism), philosophy(sophism), pseudoscience, or narrative(excuse), not law, or policy that would benefit them;

    (b) people want to preserve their right to advocate for supernatural, sophistry, pseudoscientific, or excuses, rather than do so truthfully (scientifically);

    (c) that propertarianism’s grammars, operationalism, epistemology, and strict construction, are too hard for ordinary people to undrestand (not that they undrestand the calculus, programming, or the law as it stands today yet they live under them);

    (d) because of these reasons it will not be possible to form a majority movement to enact those policies and that law producing those benefits.

    In other words – they want people to agree with them on some given utilitarian falsehood, rather than produce a market for people who agree on utilitarian goods and truths.

    But as to the work itself, there is no surviving criticism of:

    (a) the grammars;

    (b) or the epistemology;

    (c) or the law;

    … that I know of.

    And ‘grown ups’ – meaning those of us who have built organizations of any scale, or worked large organizations, or in government, or in finance or in the judiciary, are quite well aware that the world operates by rules and those rules consists of legislation, regulation, and findings of law. And that everything else exists within it. Not because people believe in the law via positiva, but because they fear the consequences of not doing so.

    And conversely that philosophy and religion are for those lacking agency to operate within that which is governed by the law.

    In other words, if you argue with religion or philosophy or moralizing, rather than law it is evidence of lack of agency in material matters.

    (a) The purpose of religion is regional social mindfulness.

    (b) The purpose of philosophy is local personal mindfulness.

    (c) The purpose of science is a universal language of truthful speech.

    (d) The purpose of the NATURAL law is a universal method of prosecuting imposition of costs upon others involuntarily.

    (e) The purpose of legislation and regulation is to enforce the terms of the local contracts in the production of commons.

    The difference in the production of commons is determined by asian (dictatorial corporate), european(bipartite state vs citizen), anglo (egalitarian sovereign) presumptions. The semites do not produce commons other than religious, which only force continued devolution.

    So, in relation to my work, my opinion is, that if you cannot argue against:

    (a) the epistemology

    (b) the construction of the law, and;

    (c) the construction of any given constitution;

    (c) the benefits (policies), and;

    (d) the creation for a market of non-false religion, non-false philosophy, non-false science;

    …then you don’t much matter other than preventing good people who are willing to act to obtain material benefits and the rewards of a society far more free of falsehoods – then you don’t matter.

    THE OPINIONATED IGNORANT

    People are happy to opine and presume knowledge.

    However,

    (a) if you sit down, and try to write a constitution that cannot be violated and which ends the industrialization of propaganda, disinformation, sophism, pseudoscience, and deceit, in commercial financial, economic, and political spheres you will find that the problem is quite difficult.

    (b) To do so requires a VIA-NEGATIVA epistemology of eliminating falsehoods. Which if you sit down and try to produce, is quite difficult. And once having done so

    (c) if you sit down and try to produce a set of policies that eliminate commercial, financial, economic, political, and academic parasitism in all its forms, you will find it is quite difficult.

    (e) If you sit down and try to produce a plan by which a small percentage of (costly) men can bring a government to its knees such that it has no choice but to enact this constitutional amendments, end parasitism, and free a people from predation and genocide, you will find it is somewhat hard to do.

    Now, if you can find a one, single, other, person, who can do any ONE of those things, I’d like to meet that person.

    If you can find that group of people to do all those things, I would love to know about them.

    Because from where I’m sitting you folks haven’t got a single other person living today with anything other than wishful thinking and empty words.

    And while I’d MUCH RATHER sit around and work on my tech company and reap the economic rewards, I am not (unlike critics) extirpating my frustration with hollow nonsense to mask my lack of agency and courage.

    I am not afraid of dying. And I don’t lack agency. I’ve demonstrated my agency in every walk of life.

    I have built companies of scale. I have built a body of thought on a scale only seen since the marxists and perhaps since locke, smith and hume. And much against my preference I’m building a body of people capable of teaching and communicating the work, the policies, and the revolution to those who would have it.

    And if you had a criticism of anything material you would make it. However, what I see is nothing more than

    (a) lack of understanding, and straw manning because of it,

    (b) self confidence absent evidence of demonstrated ability,

    (c) moral conviction that is admirable,

    (d) but lacking the courage to do more than gossip.

    So make an argument, offer a competing alternative of equal or better scope and precision, or don’t waste my time.

    Thanks

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-25 10:38:00 UTC

  • What you CAN criticize

    [L]ook nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is. What you can criticize is: 1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law. 2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes. 3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules. To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means. You can criticize it. So do it. Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

  • What you CAN criticize

    [L]ook nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is. What you can criticize is: 1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law. 2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes. 3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules. To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means. You can criticize it. So do it. Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

  • Look nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to

    Look nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is.

    What you can criticize is:

    1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law.

    2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes.

    3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules.

    To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means.

    You can criticize it.

    So do it.

    Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 15:18:00 UTC

  • “IF YOU WON’T FIGHT YOU DON’T MATTER” (orwoll’s latest shot) OK. This is rather

    “IF YOU WON’T FIGHT YOU DON’T MATTER”

    (orwoll’s latest shot)

    OK. This is rather silly. Here is your entire argument:

    “I don’t think it’s gonna work.

    The government is scary.

    I don’t wanna take the risk.

    I don’t want you guys to take the risk.

    There won’t be enough of you to take the risk.

    I don’t care about my people or the future just the present.

    I’m gonna pretend that christ will save me.

    I don’t understand your stuff but I’m gonna call you a cult (religious) leader – even if I would’t call marxists, postmodernists, feminists, cults but philosophical movements.

    I don’t understand the policy demands, or the changes to the constitution and the laws and the practical results that they would produce.

    I wanna do nothing – just like we’ve been doing.”

    You don’t offer anything to counter the epistemology, formal law, the constitution changes, or the set of policies.

    you only say “I dunno but I am ignorant and scared and I don’t want anything to do with it.”

    Which I agree with. Because you don’t matter.

    You can thank us if we are successful.

    And virtue signal yourself if we are not.

    And unless you are going to offer something substantive this is not worth my time. So let’s run a test: Let’s see how everything plays out. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 15:08:00 UTC

  • TALEB, LIKE SOROS AND ROTHBARD TELLS A HALF TRUTH TO MASK A PROFOUND LIE

    TALEB, LIKE SOROS AND ROTHBARD TELLS A HALF TRUTH TO MASK A PROFOUND LIE.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-22 18:40:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087782071240663041

  • LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.”

    LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-22 18:38:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087781652858851328

  • TALEB, LIKE SOROS AND ROTHBARD TELLS A HALF TRUTH TO MASK THE SAME PROFOUND LIE.

    TALEB, LIKE SOROS AND ROTHBARD TELLS A HALF TRUTH TO MASK THE SAME PROFOUND LIE.

    They hate white people and white civilization. They gleefully treat our high trust as an opportunity to make us victims of their lack of it. They profit from our trust. They ridicule the very people who DO NOT SEIZE immoral opportunities as fools. Rather than this being the very reason why we have prosperity and they do not.

    The people of truth vs the people of lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-22 13:40:00 UTC