Form: Definition

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • Synonyms: Property, Morality, and Law

    [T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

    (i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate. 
    (ii) MORALITY: that which we require. 
    (iii) LAW: that which we promise.

  • Synonyms: Property, Morality, and Law

    [T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

    (i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate. 
    (ii) MORALITY: that which we require. 
    (iii) LAW: that which we promise.

  • ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT? Well that depends upon whether one is discussing expe

    ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT?

    Well that depends upon whether one is discussing experience, meaning or existence, and whether one conflates them.

    I write definitions all the time. It is very hard work.

    The only existentially possible truth is testimonial truth: a proposition that is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and operationally(existentially) possible. all other uses of the term truth are analogies to testimonial truth requiring fewer properties for the purpose of the method in which such statements are made.

    Mathematics (logic of relations) for example constructs proofs, and mathematicians claim that they they are true: internally consistent. Mathematics is an internally consistent system in which both discovery and existence are operationally demonstrated.

    Physics (logic of causation) uses mathematics, and therefore statements in physics also require external correspondence. We can only test the measurements for existence, so we test measures rather than causal properties.

    In human action and human cooperation, we rely on internal consistency of statements, external correspondence, as well as operational definitions – because we must insure that we are not using information supplied by imagination instead of existential information alone.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 12:55:00 UTC

  • Synonyms

    [T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

    (i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate. 
    (ii) MORALITY: that which we require. 
    (iii) LAW: that which we promise.

  • Synonyms

    [T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

    (i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate. 
    (ii) MORALITY: that which we require. 
    (iii) LAW: that which we promise.

  • SYNONYMS: The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are

    SYNONYMS:

    The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

    (i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate.

    (ii) MORALITY: that which we require.

    (iii) LAW: that which we promise.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-03 10:35:00 UTC