Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Government

    Is the State Moral?

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local rent-seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where the concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non-state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to a territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule-of-law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent-seekers to fewer larger centralized rent-seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since the suppression of local corruption and rent-seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress new, larger organizations of rent-seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense, the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons include the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as the insurer, investor, and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it.

    WHAT PEOPLE MEAN BY TRUST IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

    In the political context, when people are expressing in their government, it only refers to three factors: (a) the framing of the debate by the media, academy, state complex, (b) the orderliness or at least comprehensibility of the patterns of speech and (c) the current levels of anxiety over the future. In other words, the academy, state, media, create demand by generation of conflict, just as diversity of race, ethnicity, and class generates conflict, just as ideological competition creates conflict. The state generates conflcit for ATTENTION which gets them POWER. Trust is a synonym for predictability over time.  

    Monarchy

    Monarchy (which is a purely Christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract.

    Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in England, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately, the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists, and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all-out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo-european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with Christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

    Taxation

    The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive). If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively. However the single most detrimental policies have been: (a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able). (b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.) Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.  

    Deep States and How to Deal with Them

    Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance….. THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS: 1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified. 2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives. 3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced. 4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them. THEORIES 1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level. 2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest. 3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect. 4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly). 5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts. GENERAL LAWS: 1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition. 2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions. 3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate. THE SCIENCE Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort. You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’. All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other. And that is what we see.

  • Government

    Is the State Moral?

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local rent-seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where the concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non-state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to a territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule-of-law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent-seekers to fewer larger centralized rent-seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since the suppression of local corruption and rent-seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress new, larger organizations of rent-seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense, the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons include the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as the insurer, investor, and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it.

    WHAT PEOPLE MEAN BY TRUST IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

    In the political context, when people are expressing in their government, it only refers to three factors: (a) the framing of the debate by the media, academy, state complex, (b) the orderliness or at least comprehensibility of the patterns of speech and (c) the current levels of anxiety over the future. In other words, the academy, state, media, create demand by generation of conflict, just as diversity of race, ethnicity, and class generates conflict, just as ideological competition creates conflict. The state generates conflcit for ATTENTION which gets them POWER. Trust is a synonym for predictability over time.  

    Monarchy

    Monarchy (which is a purely Christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract.

    Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in England, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately, the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists, and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all-out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo-european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with Christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

    Taxation

    The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive). If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively. However the single most detrimental policies have been: (a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able). (b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.) Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.  

    Deep States and How to Deal with Them

    Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance….. THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS: 1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified. 2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives. 3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced. 4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them. THEORIES 1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level. 2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest. 3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect. 4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly). 5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts. GENERAL LAWS: 1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition. 2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions. 3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate. THE SCIENCE Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort. You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’. All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other. And that is what we see.

  • Economics – Production of Consumption

    THE ECONOMICS OF TIME AND MORALITY

    Free markets are a lie. Their existence has no scale on independent theories, and likewise, their existence has no scale on independent markets. They are another cosmopolitan invention. A moral pretense by which to engage in immoral actions. The requirement that we not impose costs by externality upon the investments of others causing the loss of capital in territorial, physical, institutional, cultural, normative, informational, familial, and genetic assets limits markets. Markets allow us to create opportunity through proximity, informational, informal and formal institutions, and physical infrastructure as a common good. Market opportunities are produced as a common good. We can then serve the common good by converting opportunity into exchanges, the performance of which, creates more than it consumes by the service of the coincidence of wants. We create opportunities for temporal compression through the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and seize them through the identification of a coincidence of wants, thereby converting the potential for temporal compression into the existential compression of time. And it is through this temporal compression that we, collectively, in increasing scales, constantly reduce the cost of existence, and defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity. If you understand this you will understand all of human civilization, and the reason we have achieved what no other creatures have achieved. We must defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and scarcity, and we do so through cooperation, and we cooperate through the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs on one another upon life, body, kin, possessions, and interests, in the form of violence, theft, fraud, falsehood, conspiracy, rents and free-riding. We accomplish this incremental suppression by the demand for a warranty of due diligence for our products(materials), services(actions), and information(speech) and the prosecution, restitution, punishment, ostracisation, or execution, of those who circumvent that Warranty of Reciprocity by production, action, or speech. This leaves us with no option but to participate in voluntary markets under which we limit our productions, actions, and speech to that which consists of productive, fully informed (truthful), warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of cost upon the life, kin, possessions, and interests of others by externality. This explains the entirety of human existence.

    The Need for New Institutions of Calculation

    (the problem of measurement) (the problem of pooling)  

    Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people

    Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people unless dis-intermediated by capital. So end disintermediation by capital and you restore the reciprocal dependence of elites upon ordinary people. So in order to prevent elites from defecting from their ordinary people the people must prevent disintermediation their from elites by capital. How is this done? Relatively easily. Especially with full accounting of changes in capital.  

    The Soviet Experiment

    (advantage of the discount on market prices of serf labor at cost of skills and incentives)  

    The Chinese Experiment

    Why No Version of Socialism Is Possible

    [ KEY LESSON: HUMANS SEEK RENTS over productivity. The only way to obtain those rents is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns. Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns). ] In other words, socialism is the ultimate selfishness. LIST

    1. The investments are undecidable without monetary interests (it’s impossible) so that in the absence of money and rule of law we see discretion.
    2. The investments are minimal because in all organizations, members seek to maximize rents.
    3. Because the incentive to maximize rents is superior to the incentive to invest, corruption evolves instead of production.
    4. Because of all of the above, the general standard of living of the people declines relative to those who practice markets.
    5. Because of the difference in standard of living force must be used to retain the population(defectors) OR force will (in the past at least) be used to prevent invasion by defectors.
    6. Socialists are simply seeking non-market rents. The way to obtain market premiums is to exit the company in favor of a company that pays more.
    7. If you cannot exit the company and obtain a premium, then you are already maximizing your income.
    8. Engineers (employees) that produce outsized returns provide those returns to the entire company, allowing increases in rents by all employees.
    9. Investors require high returns for the simple reason that the vast majority of their investments fail. The portfolio strategy is to lose most, make good returns on a few, and have one windfall. This is also how the movie business, and publishing business work, with outliers paying for all others. (this is why redistribution – exists under capitalism: unpredictability)
    10. Engineers with ideas that produce outsized returns leave the company to produce the product on their own. If they cannot produce it on their own then they means that the value was in the organization not the individual since the value is in organizing and creating investment, production, distribution, and trade.
    11. There have been rare cases where individuals are not compensated (windshield wiper delays) but the vast number of individuals who contribute returns venture on their own – and don’t otherwise, because they in fact cannot produce the product.
    12. As an aside, corporate democracy is absolutely ridiculous. All the evidence illustrates that leadership matters, and as someone who has built some very large consulting companies, specializing the creating consensus in companies, democracy in companies would be as catastrophic as it is in politics, and only lead to the same corruption. Someone DOES know the answer in the company. The primary function of Management Consulting Companies is to survey what everyone in a company knows, to identify which ideas have some potential given the available financial and market resources and then write an argument and develop consensus in the company because of it. Why? Dunning Kruger: everyone in a company (any organization, and in society) VASTLY overstates their knowledge except Generals, CEOs, and Presidents. Any competent CEO or general will say the same thing: I am only doing this job because I can’t find someone who will do it better, or I promised some people I would do it until I succeeded or failed. That’s it.

    I could go on but basically redistribution occurs through success of organizations. The problem is simply the one eugenicists warned us about, and economists acknowledge only behind closed doors: that the central problem for any polity is reducing the size of the unproductive classes to those who have been the victims of accidents, rather than increasing the size of dependent classes until their rents are maximized, and investment and risk are no longer possible on the one hand, and ability to absorb shocks is no longer possible on the other. HUMANS SEEK RENTS. The only way to obtain them is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns. Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns). This is why market economies succeed in vast improvement of lower class conditions more so than the upper classes (who are subject to constantly forced economic rotation. While the reason socialist economies always fail, and always will fail is attributed to a lack of incentives to produce, and because the creation of incentives for corruption, and because Very few companies last the lifetime of their founders and their children. And as capital is continually less important than rates of invention and innovation, this will continue. Wealth generally survives under three generations. And around 94% of wealth is generated by small and medium business entrepreneurship. And of that wealth a not insignificant portion is research and development that that is later acquired by larger companies with access to public markets. The only thing we can do today is eliminate consumer interest on consumption (houses, cars, appliances), and cut the size of the unproductive classes by eliminating immigration extending work life by providing ‘retirees’ and ‘students’ with part time work, eliminating the obesity problem that limits people’s ability to work, and by culling the underclasses through one child policy. Everything else is suicidal (Europe, Canada, and America), or destructive (brazil, india). PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT MIXED ECONOMIES The problem with current capitalism is that it is possible on the one hand to form unions that can extort from companies under collective bargaining (which is why companies left the USA), and on the other hand, it is possible for (a) investors to prey on companies at the expense of management and staff (this is easily fixed by prohibiting leveraged buyouts, and then legally limiting risk), and (b) we do not help companies adjust to shocks often enough (we should have helped hostess like we helped the auto companies), (c) we do not engage in enough private public ventures (like Tesla, which if successful directly or indirectly, will revolutionize transport by resetting the clock back 100 years), (d) we do not prohibit labor arbitrage (outsourcing production for the purpose of obtaining labor discounts), (e) and we conduct trade policy like everyone else, which is to attempt to restore technological leadership by ensuring that we are not behind (production of LED and other screens, and mass production of chips), (e) and eliminate corporate pensions (they are no longer possible) and centralize them (Singapore model), because they alter the pricing system such that products are decreasingly competitive. (and btw: eliminate government pensions as well.)  

  • Economics – Production of Consumption

    THE ECONOMICS OF TIME AND MORALITY

    Free markets are a lie. Their existence has no scale on independent theories, and likewise, their existence has no scale on independent markets. They are another cosmopolitan invention. A moral pretense by which to engage in immoral actions. The requirement that we not impose costs by externality upon the investments of others causing the loss of capital in territorial, physical, institutional, cultural, normative, informational, familial, and genetic assets limits markets. Markets allow us to create opportunity through proximity, informational, informal and formal institutions, and physical infrastructure as a common good. Market opportunities are produced as a common good. We can then serve the common good by converting opportunity into exchanges, the performance of which, creates more than it consumes by the service of the coincidence of wants. We create opportunities for temporal compression through the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and seize them through the identification of a coincidence of wants, thereby converting the potential for temporal compression into the existential compression of time. And it is through this temporal compression that we, collectively, in increasing scales, constantly reduce the cost of existence, and defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity. If you understand this you will understand all of human civilization, and the reason we have achieved what no other creatures have achieved. We must defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and scarcity, and we do so through cooperation, and we cooperate through the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs on one another upon life, body, kin, possessions, and interests, in the form of violence, theft, fraud, falsehood, conspiracy, rents and free-riding. We accomplish this incremental suppression by the demand for a warranty of due diligence for our products(materials), services(actions), and information(speech) and the prosecution, restitution, punishment, ostracisation, or execution, of those who circumvent that Warranty of Reciprocity by production, action, or speech. This leaves us with no option but to participate in voluntary markets under which we limit our productions, actions, and speech to that which consists of productive, fully informed (truthful), warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of cost upon the life, kin, possessions, and interests of others by externality. This explains the entirety of human existence.

    The Need for New Institutions of Calculation

    (the problem of measurement) (the problem of pooling)  

    Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people

    Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people unless dis-intermediated by capital. So end disintermediation by capital and you restore the reciprocal dependence of elites upon ordinary people. So in order to prevent elites from defecting from their ordinary people the people must prevent disintermediation their from elites by capital. How is this done? Relatively easily. Especially with full accounting of changes in capital.  

    The Soviet Experiment

    (advantage of the discount on market prices of serf labor at cost of skills and incentives)  

    The Chinese Experiment

    Why No Version of Socialism Is Possible

    [ KEY LESSON: HUMANS SEEK RENTS over productivity. The only way to obtain those rents is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns. Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns). ] In other words, socialism is the ultimate selfishness. LIST

    1. The investments are undecidable without monetary interests (it’s impossible) so that in the absence of money and rule of law we see discretion.
    2. The investments are minimal because in all organizations, members seek to maximize rents.
    3. Because the incentive to maximize rents is superior to the incentive to invest, corruption evolves instead of production.
    4. Because of all of the above, the general standard of living of the people declines relative to those who practice markets.
    5. Because of the difference in standard of living force must be used to retain the population(defectors) OR force will (in the past at least) be used to prevent invasion by defectors.
    6. Socialists are simply seeking non-market rents. The way to obtain market premiums is to exit the company in favor of a company that pays more.
    7. If you cannot exit the company and obtain a premium, then you are already maximizing your income.
    8. Engineers (employees) that produce outsized returns provide those returns to the entire company, allowing increases in rents by all employees.
    9. Investors require high returns for the simple reason that the vast majority of their investments fail. The portfolio strategy is to lose most, make good returns on a few, and have one windfall. This is also how the movie business, and publishing business work, with outliers paying for all others. (this is why redistribution – exists under capitalism: unpredictability)
    10. Engineers with ideas that produce outsized returns leave the company to produce the product on their own. If they cannot produce it on their own then they means that the value was in the organization not the individual since the value is in organizing and creating investment, production, distribution, and trade.
    11. There have been rare cases where individuals are not compensated (windshield wiper delays) but the vast number of individuals who contribute returns venture on their own – and don’t otherwise, because they in fact cannot produce the product.
    12. As an aside, corporate democracy is absolutely ridiculous. All the evidence illustrates that leadership matters, and as someone who has built some very large consulting companies, specializing the creating consensus in companies, democracy in companies would be as catastrophic as it is in politics, and only lead to the same corruption. Someone DOES know the answer in the company. The primary function of Management Consulting Companies is to survey what everyone in a company knows, to identify which ideas have some potential given the available financial and market resources and then write an argument and develop consensus in the company because of it. Why? Dunning Kruger: everyone in a company (any organization, and in society) VASTLY overstates their knowledge except Generals, CEOs, and Presidents. Any competent CEO or general will say the same thing: I am only doing this job because I can’t find someone who will do it better, or I promised some people I would do it until I succeeded or failed. That’s it.

    I could go on but basically redistribution occurs through success of organizations. The problem is simply the one eugenicists warned us about, and economists acknowledge only behind closed doors: that the central problem for any polity is reducing the size of the unproductive classes to those who have been the victims of accidents, rather than increasing the size of dependent classes until their rents are maximized, and investment and risk are no longer possible on the one hand, and ability to absorb shocks is no longer possible on the other. HUMANS SEEK RENTS. The only way to obtain them is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns. Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns). This is why market economies succeed in vast improvement of lower class conditions more so than the upper classes (who are subject to constantly forced economic rotation. While the reason socialist economies always fail, and always will fail is attributed to a lack of incentives to produce, and because the creation of incentives for corruption, and because Very few companies last the lifetime of their founders and their children. And as capital is continually less important than rates of invention and innovation, this will continue. Wealth generally survives under three generations. And around 94% of wealth is generated by small and medium business entrepreneurship. And of that wealth a not insignificant portion is research and development that that is later acquired by larger companies with access to public markets. The only thing we can do today is eliminate consumer interest on consumption (houses, cars, appliances), and cut the size of the unproductive classes by eliminating immigration extending work life by providing ‘retirees’ and ‘students’ with part time work, eliminating the obesity problem that limits people’s ability to work, and by culling the underclasses through one child policy. Everything else is suicidal (Europe, Canada, and America), or destructive (brazil, india). PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT MIXED ECONOMIES The problem with current capitalism is that it is possible on the one hand to form unions that can extort from companies under collective bargaining (which is why companies left the USA), and on the other hand, it is possible for (a) investors to prey on companies at the expense of management and staff (this is easily fixed by prohibiting leveraged buyouts, and then legally limiting risk), and (b) we do not help companies adjust to shocks often enough (we should have helped hostess like we helped the auto companies), (c) we do not engage in enough private public ventures (like Tesla, which if successful directly or indirectly, will revolutionize transport by resetting the clock back 100 years), (d) we do not prohibit labor arbitrage (outsourcing production for the purpose of obtaining labor discounts), (e) and we conduct trade policy like everyone else, which is to attempt to restore technological leadership by ensuring that we are not behind (production of LED and other screens, and mass production of chips), (e) and eliminate corporate pensions (they are no longer possible) and centralize them (Singapore model), because they alter the pricing system such that products are decreasingly competitive. (and btw: eliminate government pensions as well.)  

  • Mathematics

    REFORMING MATHEMATICS

    “Mathematics, by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.”

    “The discipline we call computer science is more generally the logic of operations, and is superior in informational density to mathematics in that it is causal and mathematics is merely descriptive.”

    THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVERYTHING: DIFFERENCES

    differences( logic ) > speech > sets > agorithms > mathematics

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations. We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale-independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc. As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’. it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half-truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work. There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention. Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets. This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed. Anyway. Well-formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well-formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore, the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to the utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood. How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    NUMBERS

    “Nouns are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names. Numbers are positional names of constant relations. As positional names, they are extensions of ordinary language. Math: the science of measurement by the use of constant relations.” We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother; Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction. Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation. So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information). Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application. Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale-independent, context-dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception. As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present. As such, numbers serve as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason. Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity. As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason than it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”. Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit are pervasive. Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with. Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within. Numbers are positional names of context-independent, scale-independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language. In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.

    MATH IS SIMPLE

    The foundations of mathematics are simple. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law, it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math is very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizarre set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time. Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states. However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth. Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented. Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it. Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions). So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions. In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS? NONSENSE.

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition. Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions.   producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields. So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it. I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic. There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language. A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families. A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book. A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently. Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words. Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics. Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible. Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations). The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question. In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own. Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying. We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts. So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements. However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.) This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability. Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first-order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century. Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in the value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the Copenhagen consensus. Or the many-worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or Keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS

    Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever-changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics, as we understand it, can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real-world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing a change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you understand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. As far as I know, all truth refers to testimony and we use the term ‘True’ ‘loosely’ for many purposes – largely ‘consent’. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics). GAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —”Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Mathematics

    REFORMING MATHEMATICS

    “Mathematics, by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.”

    “The discipline we call computer science is more generally the logic of operations, and is superior in informational density to mathematics in that it is causal and mathematics is merely descriptive.”

    THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVERYTHING: DIFFERENCES

    differences( logic ) > speech > sets > agorithms > mathematics

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations. We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale-independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc. As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’. it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half-truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work. There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention. Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets. This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed. Anyway. Well-formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well-formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore, the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to the utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood. How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    NUMBERS

    “Nouns are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names. Numbers are positional names of constant relations. As positional names, they are extensions of ordinary language. Math: the science of measurement by the use of constant relations.” We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother; Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction. Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation. So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information). Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application. Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale-independent, context-dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception. As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present. As such, numbers serve as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason. Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity. As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason than it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”. Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit are pervasive. Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with. Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within. Numbers are positional names of context-independent, scale-independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language. In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.

    MATH IS SIMPLE

    The foundations of mathematics are simple. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law, it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math is very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizarre set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time. Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states. However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth. Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented. Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it. Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions). So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions. In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS? NONSENSE.

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition. Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions.   producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields. So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it. I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic. There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language. A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families. A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book. A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently. Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words. Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics. Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible. Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations). The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question. In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own. Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying. We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts. So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements. However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.) This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability. Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first-order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century. Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in the value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the Copenhagen consensus. Or the many-worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or Keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS

    Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever-changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics, as we understand it, can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real-world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing a change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you understand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. As far as I know, all truth refers to testimony and we use the term ‘True’ ‘loosely’ for many purposes – largely ‘consent’. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics). GAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —”Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    Mapping Natural Law to Philosophy and The Sciences

    Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.) Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends. Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott. Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment. Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality. Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity. Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.) Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

    There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias, And Lies

    One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE: 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE: 1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy) 2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy) — 3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’ 4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc. — 5 – History, (description) 6 – Biography,(description) — 7 – Argument (coercion) 7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias, and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR. LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) Demarcation I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    Mapping Natural Law to Philosophy and The Sciences

    Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.) Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends. Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott. Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment. Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality. Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity. Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.) Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

    There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias, And Lies

    One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE: 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE: 1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy) 2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy) — 3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’ 4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc. — 5 – History, (description) 6 – Biography,(description) — 7 – Argument (coercion) 7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias, and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR. LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) Demarcation I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Marriage and Family – Production of Generations

    On Marriage

    How Do Family Structures Vary?

    The family structure determines:

    • the amount of inbreeding
    • the inheritance system
    • the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    • the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing
    • lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    • the degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    • the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    • the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    • the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

    Conversely, increases in family size determine:

    • The degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • The stress of raising children, since sharing child-rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • The insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • The demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.

    List of Family Structures

    Small Homogeneous High Trust Privileged Societies Can Tolerate Highly Redistributive Governments

    State Financed Single Parent Family – Medium-term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.High Trust Societies with Higher Economic Velocity, Can Tolerate Libertarian Governments

    Absolute Nuclear Family – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

    Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.Medium Trust Marginal Societies with Medium Economic Velocity – Require Social Democratic Governments

    Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

    A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.Low Trust, Poor Societies with Low Economic Velocity – Require Authoritarian Governments

    Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

    Hetaeristic Monogamy – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations. Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Medium-term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

    Consanguine Family – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    Marriage is a Corporation

    I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:

    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity; (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other; (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production; (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.); (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders. Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace. Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’. However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us. So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism). Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations. If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs). Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy. All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic. CLOSING This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences. My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

  • Marriage and Family – Production of Generations

    On Marriage

    How Do Family Structures Vary?

    The family structure determines:

    • the amount of inbreeding
    • the inheritance system
    • the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    • the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing
    • lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    • the degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    • the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    • the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    • the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

    Conversely, increases in family size determine:

    • The degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • The stress of raising children, since sharing child-rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • The insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • The demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.

    List of Family Structures

    Small Homogeneous High Trust Privileged Societies Can Tolerate Highly Redistributive Governments

    State Financed Single Parent Family – Medium-term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.High Trust Societies with Higher Economic Velocity, Can Tolerate Libertarian Governments

    Absolute Nuclear Family – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

    Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.Medium Trust Marginal Societies with Medium Economic Velocity – Require Social Democratic Governments

    Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

    A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.Low Trust, Poor Societies with Low Economic Velocity – Require Authoritarian Governments

    Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

    Hetaeristic Monogamy – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations. Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Medium-term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

    Consanguine Family – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    Marriage is a Corporation

    I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:

    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity; (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other; (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production; (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.); (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders. Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace. Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’. However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us. So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism). Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations. If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs). Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy. All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic. CLOSING This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences. My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.