First Principles of Propertarian Ethics: Non-Parasitism and Therefore Rational Cooperation
MAN
The requirements of man.
1 – Man must acquire resources.
2 – Man must act to acquire resources.
3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve the acquisition of resources.
4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
5 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism without which parasitism creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war, and genocide.
7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
ETHICS
0 — Time is limited and the only infinite scarcity
1 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.
2 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.
4 – Man must act to acquire and inventory resources:
5 – Man must defend that which he has acquired and inventoried. (His possession is demonstrated by what he defends from loss, and what he retaliates for imposition of costs upon.)
PROPERTY IN TOTO (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
4 – Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:
……4.1 Survival: Life, Time, Memories, Actions, Rest,
Attention, Social Status, Reputation
……4.2 Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility), Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
……4.3 Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)
……4.4 Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.
……4.5 Shareholder Property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
……4.6 Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
……4.7 Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
(….add human capital here,….)
5 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity.)
6 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
……5.1 Productive (increases property)
……5.2 Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
……5.3 Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
……5.4 Voluntary Exchange
……5.5 Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).
7 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity)
8 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)
9 – Man engages in parasitism by:
……7.1 violence,
……7.2 theft,
……7.3 extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
……7.3 fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
……7.4 externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
……7.5 conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.
Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy
10 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
……10.1 Man possesses three weapons of influence: violence(imposition of material costs), gossip(imposition of opportunity costs: ostracization-inclusion), and remuneration(transfer of assets: exchange).
……10.2 Man uses all three weapons of influence, usually in concert, and in different degrees: consisting of a ‘chord of coercion’.
……10.3 Some men specialize in one weapon of influence: Warriors, Sheriffs and judges: Violence; priests and public intellectuals: Gossip; Organizers of Production: Remuneration.
11 – The most rapid means by which man can organize the suppression of parasitism is by defining property rights as all demonstrated property, and creating a court of universal standing under the common law, under the rule of law before a jury of his peers – since any innovation in parasitism is suppressed by the creation of a new prohibition with the first suit adjudicated. (Common, organically evolutionary law most rapidly prevents expansion of demonstrated parasitic opportunities.)
12 – A market for goods and services produces consumables, but a market for commons produces non-consumables. Non-consumable goods that provide utility whether those goods be privately constructed (use by private shareholders only) or publicly constructed (use by all citizen-shareholders). Commons (whether physical, normative or institutional) provide a disproportionate return to shareholders by preventing consumption and preserving utility.
13 – Majority rule is a sufficient means of decision making for small homogenous groups who must select priorities to achieve using limited resources. Majority rule is insufficient means of decision making for large heterogeneous groups with conflicting preferences. In heterogeneous groups monopoly rule by majority rule, is merely a vehicle for justifying thefts. Homogenous groups may need to select priorities among desirable ends, but because heterogeneous groups have incompatible ends, heterogeneous groups need means of cooperation on means despite incompatible ends: agreements by which difference can be mitigated through mutually beneficial exchanges. As such the purpose of government is the construction of commons by creating a market for the contractual production of commons.
14 – Moral, and therefore non-parasitic, agreements between parties that are productive, fully informed, voluntary, and warrantied need no assent (approval) from third parties. Instead, all such agreements need only refrain from externalities: the imposition of costs on the property-en-toto of third parties. As such, in any market for the production of commons, assent is not necessary for the construction of exchanges between classes with differing interests. Instead such contracts must only survive criticism: adjudication. As such anyone can sue to invalidate a contract. But no one’s approval is necessary for such contracts. As such the construction of commons requires not ascent. Instead, the prevention of a contract requires dissent that survives adjudication.
15 – division of cognitive labor– moral specialization and therefore moral blindness – exchanges as a means of calculation by trades of cooperation between specialists.
16 – the family-regulation of reproduction–
17 – Division of houses by cognitive labor —
13 – A condition of both interpersonal morality both forces all human action necessary for man’s survival into productive participation in the market by denying parasitism, and reduces or eliminates transaction costs (frictions due to risk), which in turn maximizes the potential economic velocity of the group.
14 – A condition of liberty is constructed when all men, including those who participate in the construction of commons – members of the government – are equally bound by the prohibition on parasitism: the common law against parasitism. (Morality is a synonym for non-parasitism. Liberty is a synonym for a moral – meaning non-parasitic – government.)
15 – If one does not engage in parasitism by doing so, the forcible increase of the suppression of others’ free riding is always by definition moral and just. This increases the possibilities of prosperity for all men. (Legal colonialism is moral. Economic colonialism is not.) (Aristocracy is obliged to increase the pool of aristocratic people whenever possible, and affordable.)
There is no competitive strategy greater than the suppression of parasitism in all it’s forms. Because all human effort is limited to the market for productive ends, and all market activity is conducted under the lowest possible speculative friction.
The optimum group evolutionary strategy is to suppress all parasitism, while constantly driving up it’s intelligence by suppressing the reproduction of its lower classes (non performers). This causes no harm, and produces the greatest and longest term competitive benefit.)
If many groups follow this strategy, the largest group with the highest median IQ and aggression (competitive energy) will produce the most innovation. Anti parasitism is eugenic, and parasitism is dysgenic.
Some groups cannot compete. So they will continue to act as parasites. (Gypsies).
The Evolution of Cooperation:
1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.
2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.”
3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)
4) Non-Imposition:: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors.
5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.)
6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)
7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.
8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.
9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.
10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.
11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.
12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production.
13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part complexity then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts).
14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.
15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.
Causes of The Evolution of Cooperation
Ingroup Cooperation
1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation.
2) The differences in abilities at different ages.
3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders.
4) The differences in abilities among men.
5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights.
7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.Outgroup Cooperation
12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.)
CATEGORIES OF POSSESSION
0) Non-Property (Bring under total control)
….CONTROL: Total Control
….PURPOSE: Create Property
….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus.1) Possession
a) Possession(Demonstrated): That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use.
2) Consensual Possession
a) Property(Consensual): That which you and I agree not to impose costs, use or consume from one another.
3) Normative Possession
a) Property(Normative): That which by norm all agree not to impose costs, use or consume from one another, and all of which agree to defend from one another.
4) Institutional Possession – “Property”
(UNDONE)
COMMON LIMITS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.
2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.
3) Action – Display, Word, Action, Deed
4) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.
5) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)
6) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)
7) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.
DEFINITIONS OF RIGHTS
Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions
Negative Right: a contractual obligation by another party to refrain from actions: to forgo opportunities for gains.
Positive Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform actions: to bear costs, and to forgo opportunity for ‘defection’ (cheating).
Existential Rights: Rights exist only when (a) obtained in contractual exchange, and (b) are enforceable in matters of dispute by a third party ‘insurer’. (throughout most of history the ‘government’ is the insurer of last resort. Rights do not exist then, they must be existentially created by the construction of an insurer (usually government).
Desired Right: A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them.
Hierarchy of Rights:
– **Normative** (norms, manners, ethics, morals),
– **Contractual: **(from promise to formal document)
– **Political Right **(political):
– Human Rights (inter-state): Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments. In other words, it was an attempt to prevent horrors of primitive and developing countries, contain the horrors of communism, constrain expansionist governments, and set the purpose of government to the improvement of the condition of its citizens.
– Natural Rights (~scientifically necessary): Those rights necessary for the evolution of voluntary organization of production of goods and services (capitalism) in the absence of parasitism and predation by organizations whether public or private. All natural rights are negative rights, since we can only equally refrain from action, because we are unequally able to act, and unequally can control resources necessary for action.
…..1. Law proper (discovered),
…..2. Legislation (negotiated),
…..3. Regulation (commanded)
Human rights are necessary rights – those necessary for human freedom from predation – that any government must seek to produce for its citizens (act as a guarantor) if that government wishes to preserve it’s sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort.
RECIPROCATED PROPERTY RIGHTS
All natural (possible and necessary) rights are expressible
as “reciprocated property rights”
All Natural Rights are expressible as property rights that we reciprocally grant one another: rights to non imposition of costs against life, liberty, and property. (Which was the original wording of the US Constitution.) All moral codes are also expressible as property rights, for those actions unknown to affected parties. All ethical codes are expressible as property rights for those actions between parties where knowledge is asymmetrically distributed.
The difference between human rights (political) and natural rights (scientific) is that to mollify the communists and obtain their signatures the articles in the 20’s were added that mandated positive rights. These rights cannot be brought into existence without violating all other rights. This is why they do not and cannot exist.
The only rights we can grant each other are negative, because we can only equally possess the ability to refrain from action.
We create (organize) governments in order to create property rights. To create an insurer of our life(existence), liberty(action), and property(inventory)
Everything else we say about it is some form of colorful deception.
RIGHTS ARE THE OUTCOME OF A MARKET EXCHANGE
So, think of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that produces the actual rights of appeal for justice. All rights are the outcome of this market exchange.
OBLIGATIONS: NECESSARY FOR MARKETS OF EXCHANGE
Possessing:
1) Violence: Sufficient numbers with sufficient capacity for violence to prohibit the imposition of alternative orders other than Sovereignty in Markets. The Duty of Violence (Defense).
And Choosing:
2) Sovereignty: Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty (Obligation), Markets in Everything: Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of Consumption (Goods, Services, and Information), Production of Commons of Non-Consumption, Polities, and War. The Duty of Reciprocity.
3) Non-Imposition : Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-in-toto, Free of External Imposition of Costs against Property-in-toto. The Duty of Non-Imposition.
4) Property In Toto: that which one has born a cost in order to obtain an interest in anticipation of current or future returns.
Produces:
5) Markets in Everything: Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of Consumption (Goods, Services, and Information), Production of Commons of Non-Consumption, Polities, and War.
First Principles of Propertarian Ethics: Non-Parasitism and Therefore Rational Cooperation
MAN
The requirements of man.
1 – Man must acquire resources.
2 – Man must act to acquire resources.
3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve the acquisition of resources.
4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
5 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism without which parasitism creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war, and genocide.
7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
ETHICS
0 — Time is limited and the only infinite scarcity
1 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.
2 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.
4 – Man must act to acquire and inventory resources:
5 – Man must defend that which he has acquired and inventoried. (His possession is demonstrated by what he defends from loss, and what he retaliates for imposition of costs upon.)
PROPERTY IN TOTO (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
4 – Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:
……4.1 Survival: Life, Time, Memories, Actions, Rest,
Attention, Social Status, Reputation
……4.2 Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility), Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
……4.3 Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)
……4.4 Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.
……4.5 Shareholder Property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
……4.6 Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
……4.7 Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
(….add human capital here,….)
5 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity.)
6 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
……5.1 Productive (increases property)
……5.2 Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
……5.3 Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
……5.4 Voluntary Exchange
……5.5 Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).
7 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity)
8 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)
9 – Man engages in parasitism by:
……7.1 violence,
……7.2 theft,
……7.3 extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
……7.3 fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
……7.4 externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
……7.5 conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.
Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy
10 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
……10.1 Man possesses three weapons of influence: violence(imposition of material costs), gossip(imposition of opportunity costs: ostracization-inclusion), and remuneration(transfer of assets: exchange).
……10.2 Man uses all three weapons of influence, usually in concert, and in different degrees: consisting of a ‘chord of coercion’.
……10.3 Some men specialize in one weapon of influence: Warriors, Sheriffs and judges: Violence; priests and public intellectuals: Gossip; Organizers of Production: Remuneration.
11 – The most rapid means by which man can organize the suppression of parasitism is by defining property rights as all demonstrated property, and creating a court of universal standing under the common law, under the rule of law before a jury of his peers – since any innovation in parasitism is suppressed by the creation of a new prohibition with the first suit adjudicated. (Common, organically evolutionary law most rapidly prevents expansion of demonstrated parasitic opportunities.)
12 – A market for goods and services produces consumables, but a market for commons produces non-consumables. Non-consumable goods that provide utility whether those goods be privately constructed (use by private shareholders only) or publicly constructed (use by all citizen-shareholders). Commons (whether physical, normative or institutional) provide a disproportionate return to shareholders by preventing consumption and preserving utility.
13 – Majority rule is a sufficient means of decision making for small homogenous groups who must select priorities to achieve using limited resources. Majority rule is insufficient means of decision making for large heterogeneous groups with conflicting preferences. In heterogeneous groups monopoly rule by majority rule, is merely a vehicle for justifying thefts. Homogenous groups may need to select priorities among desirable ends, but because heterogeneous groups have incompatible ends, heterogeneous groups need means of cooperation on means despite incompatible ends: agreements by which difference can be mitigated through mutually beneficial exchanges. As such the purpose of government is the construction of commons by creating a market for the contractual production of commons.
14 – Moral, and therefore non-parasitic, agreements between parties that are productive, fully informed, voluntary, and warrantied need no assent (approval) from third parties. Instead, all such agreements need only refrain from externalities: the imposition of costs on the property-en-toto of third parties. As such, in any market for the production of commons, assent is not necessary for the construction of exchanges between classes with differing interests. Instead such contracts must only survive criticism: adjudication. As such anyone can sue to invalidate a contract. But no one’s approval is necessary for such contracts. As such the construction of commons requires not ascent. Instead, the prevention of a contract requires dissent that survives adjudication.
15 – division of cognitive labor– moral specialization and therefore moral blindness – exchanges as a means of calculation by trades of cooperation between specialists.
16 – the family-regulation of reproduction–
17 – Division of houses by cognitive labor —
13 – A condition of both interpersonal morality both forces all human action necessary for man’s survival into productive participation in the market by denying parasitism, and reduces or eliminates transaction costs (frictions due to risk), which in turn maximizes the potential economic velocity of the group.
14 – A condition of liberty is constructed when all men, including those who participate in the construction of commons – members of the government – are equally bound by the prohibition on parasitism: the common law against parasitism. (Morality is a synonym for non-parasitism. Liberty is a synonym for a moral – meaning non-parasitic – government.)
15 – If one does not engage in parasitism by doing so, the forcible increase of the suppression of others’ free riding is always by definition moral and just. This increases the possibilities of prosperity for all men. (Legal colonialism is moral. Economic colonialism is not.) (Aristocracy is obliged to increase the pool of aristocratic people whenever possible, and affordable.)
There is no competitive strategy greater than the suppression of parasitism in all it’s forms. Because all human effort is limited to the market for productive ends, and all market activity is conducted under the lowest possible speculative friction.
The optimum group evolutionary strategy is to suppress all parasitism, while constantly driving up it’s intelligence by suppressing the reproduction of its lower classes (non performers). This causes no harm, and produces the greatest and longest term competitive benefit.)
If many groups follow this strategy, the largest group with the highest median IQ and aggression (competitive energy) will produce the most innovation. Anti parasitism is eugenic, and parasitism is dysgenic.
Some groups cannot compete. So they will continue to act as parasites. (Gypsies).
The Evolution of Cooperation:
1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.
2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.”
3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)
4) Non-Imposition:: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors.
5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.)
6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)
7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.
8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.
9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.
10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.
11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.
12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production.
13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part complexity then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts).
14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.
15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.
Causes of The Evolution of Cooperation
Ingroup Cooperation
1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation.
2) The differences in abilities at different ages.
3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders.
4) The differences in abilities among men.
5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights.
7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.Outgroup Cooperation
12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.)
CATEGORIES OF POSSESSION
0) Non-Property (Bring under total control)
….CONTROL: Total Control
….PURPOSE: Create Property
….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus.1) Possession
a) Possession(Demonstrated): That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use.
2) Consensual Possession
a) Property(Consensual): That which you and I agree not to impose costs, use or consume from one another.
3) Normative Possession
a) Property(Normative): That which by norm all agree not to impose costs, use or consume from one another, and all of which agree to defend from one another.
4) Institutional Possession – “Property”
(UNDONE)
COMMON LIMITS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.
2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.
3) Action – Display, Word, Action, Deed
4) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.
5) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)
6) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)
7) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.
DEFINITIONS OF RIGHTS
Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions
Negative Right: a contractual obligation by another party to refrain from actions: to forgo opportunities for gains.
Positive Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform actions: to bear costs, and to forgo opportunity for ‘defection’ (cheating).
Existential Rights: Rights exist only when (a) obtained in contractual exchange, and (b) are enforceable in matters of dispute by a third party ‘insurer’. (throughout most of history the ‘government’ is the insurer of last resort. Rights do not exist then, they must be existentially created by the construction of an insurer (usually government).
Desired Right: A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them.
Hierarchy of Rights:
– **Normative** (norms, manners, ethics, morals),
– **Contractual: **(from promise to formal document)
– **Political Right **(political):
– Human Rights (inter-state): Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments. In other words, it was an attempt to prevent horrors of primitive and developing countries, contain the horrors of communism, constrain expansionist governments, and set the purpose of government to the improvement of the condition of its citizens.
– Natural Rights (~scientifically necessary): Those rights necessary for the evolution of voluntary organization of production of goods and services (capitalism) in the absence of parasitism and predation by organizations whether public or private. All natural rights are negative rights, since we can only equally refrain from action, because we are unequally able to act, and unequally can control resources necessary for action.
…..1. Law proper (discovered),
…..2. Legislation (negotiated),
…..3. Regulation (commanded)
Human rights are necessary rights – those necessary for human freedom from predation – that any government must seek to produce for its citizens (act as a guarantor) if that government wishes to preserve it’s sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort.
RECIPROCATED PROPERTY RIGHTS
All natural (possible and necessary) rights are expressible
as “reciprocated property rights”
All Natural Rights are expressible as property rights that we reciprocally grant one another: rights to non imposition of costs against life, liberty, and property. (Which was the original wording of the US Constitution.) All moral codes are also expressible as property rights, for those actions unknown to affected parties. All ethical codes are expressible as property rights for those actions between parties where knowledge is asymmetrically distributed.
The difference between human rights (political) and natural rights (scientific) is that to mollify the communists and obtain their signatures the articles in the 20’s were added that mandated positive rights. These rights cannot be brought into existence without violating all other rights. This is why they do not and cannot exist.
The only rights we can grant each other are negative, because we can only equally possess the ability to refrain from action.
We create (organize) governments in order to create property rights. To create an insurer of our life(existence), liberty(action), and property(inventory)
Everything else we say about it is some form of colorful deception.
RIGHTS ARE THE OUTCOME OF A MARKET EXCHANGE
So, think of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that produces the actual rights of appeal for justice. All rights are the outcome of this market exchange.
OBLIGATIONS: NECESSARY FOR MARKETS OF EXCHANGE
Possessing:
1) Violence: Sufficient numbers with sufficient capacity for violence to prohibit the imposition of alternative orders other than Sovereignty in Markets. The Duty of Violence (Defense).
And Choosing:
2) Sovereignty: Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty (Obligation), Markets in Everything: Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of Consumption (Goods, Services, and Information), Production of Commons of Non-Consumption, Polities, and War. The Duty of Reciprocity.
3) Non-Imposition : Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-in-toto, Free of External Imposition of Costs against Property-in-toto. The Duty of Non-Imposition.
4) Property In Toto: that which one has born a cost in order to obtain an interest in anticipation of current or future returns.
Produces:
5) Markets in Everything: Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of Consumption (Goods, Services, and Information), Production of Commons of Non-Consumption, Polities, and War.
The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation
The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.”
The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)
Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.
What is Natural Law?
A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
Reciprocity.
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
Fully understanding this law may also require:
1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.
2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest.
3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.
4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.
If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).
This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.
Furthermore:
If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others.
If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions.
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual.
We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups.
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking.
Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to.
It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional.
And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science.
And there is only one of them: reciprocity.
INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION BY NATURAL COMMON LAW
Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding
1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters).
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“.
8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution.
The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.
Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting).
And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.
THE TRANSACTION COST EXPLANATION OF GOVERNMENT
History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.
And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.
The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.
The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?
To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?
This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.
The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.
As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.
SUPPRESSION OF LOCAL, THEN CENTRAL RENTS
The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.
But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.
First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.
FULL SPECTRUM OF DEMOGRAPHIC PACIFICATION:
To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism:
1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts)
2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics)
3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment)
4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging).
5 – Culling (Casualties).
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?
Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.
A LITTLE HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW – FROM THE GOOD, TO THE MORAL, TO THE RATIONAL, TO THE SCIENTIFIC.
What do we mean by Law?
Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.
Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.
The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World
The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).
The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law
The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.
The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law
Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)
The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,
The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights
(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)
21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)
(Doolittle)
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.
In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.
In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
NATURAL LAW IN THE HEIRARCHY OF LAWSDEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’).
1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).
2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,
3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)
4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing.
5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).
6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.
7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).
8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.
Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure
LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION
1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and;
2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and;
3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information);
… consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.
A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW
The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.
WHEREAS
Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject.
Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.
Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.
Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.
Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.
THEREFORE
Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.
Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.
Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.
THE OPPOSITION
Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.
The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.
What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.
Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.
The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.
The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.
1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.
2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.
3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.
4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.
5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.
6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.
7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.
Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.
WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?
Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.
1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)
In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.
In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.
2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors)
The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.
The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the
3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers)
The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.
In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.
4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)
In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.
We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.
We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.
THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE
1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary)
2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static)
3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary)
4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary)
In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.
Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.
There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.
This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.
Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.
And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.
The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation
The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.”
The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)
Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.
What is Natural Law?
A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
Reciprocity.
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
Fully understanding this law may also require:
1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.
2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest.
3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.
4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.
If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).
This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.
Furthermore:
If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others.
If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions.
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual.
We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups.
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking.
Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to.
It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional.
And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science.
And there is only one of them: reciprocity.
INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION BY NATURAL COMMON LAW
Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding
1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters).
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“.
8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution.
The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.
Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting).
And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.
THE TRANSACTION COST EXPLANATION OF GOVERNMENT
History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.
And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.
The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.
The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?
To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?
This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.
The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.
As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.
SUPPRESSION OF LOCAL, THEN CENTRAL RENTS
The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.
But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.
First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.
FULL SPECTRUM OF DEMOGRAPHIC PACIFICATION:
To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism:
1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts)
2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics)
3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment)
4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging).
5 – Culling (Casualties).
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?
Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.
A LITTLE HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW – FROM THE GOOD, TO THE MORAL, TO THE RATIONAL, TO THE SCIENTIFIC.
What do we mean by Law?
Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.
Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.
The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World
The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).
The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law
The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.
The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law
Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)
The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,
The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights
(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)
21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)
(Doolittle)
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.
In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.
In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
NATURAL LAW IN THE HEIRARCHY OF LAWSDEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’).
1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).
2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,
3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)
4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing.
5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).
6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.
7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).
8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.
Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure
LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION
1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and;
2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and;
3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information);
… consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.
A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW
The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.
WHEREAS
Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject.
Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.
Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.
Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.
Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.
THEREFORE
Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.
Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.
Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.
THE OPPOSITION
Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.
The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.
What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.
Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.
The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.
The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.
1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.
2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.
3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.
4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.
5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.
6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.
7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.
Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.
WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?
Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.
1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)
In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.
In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.
2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors)
The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.
The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the
3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers)
The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.
In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.
4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)
In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.
We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.
We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.
THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE
1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary)
2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static)
3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary)
4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary)
In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.
Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.
There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.
This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.
Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.
And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.
This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well.
Definitions
Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.)
One Law of Cooperation.
The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended).
Acquisitionism and Property In Toto
The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet.
Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions
The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language.
Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure)
Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know.
Structuring Arguments as Functions
Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’.
Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression
The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.
STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Strictly Constructed Law And Contract
It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.
The Structure of a Program or Contract
————————————————————
1 – Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist)
2 – Returns (and whereas we wish to produce these ends)
3 – Constants and Variables (definitions constructed)
4 – Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”)
5 – Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions)
6 – Functions (clauses that can be performed)
7 – Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses)
8 – Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value)
9 – Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:
1 – Productive
2 – Fully informed (and truthful)
3 – Warrantied
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.
THE GRAMMAR
Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like English requires more planning than other languages do already.
For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.
EXPLANATION
Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.
Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.
So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.
OPERATIONAL GRAMMARactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, resultactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false).”
In Sovereignty (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(Acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.
FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW
If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.
{terms and definitions }-We … (who)-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).-Signed…. -Juried…. …. -Adjudicated.…. …. …. -Recorded.
This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of Anglo-Saxons that Jefferson and Adams attempted to formalize in the US constitution – but failed.
Our principal function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the American experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the English experience, and thousands of years of the various Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Aryan European traditions.
BREAKING THE WORST HABIT: THE COPULA
WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘IS’ MEAN? (THE “COPULA”)
” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “
The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat you will perceive it as the color black, as will anyone else that observes it.”
WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE?
If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.
IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO:
1) Exists (identity)
3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time)
2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties)
4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)
We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.
MISUSE
We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order:
1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.
2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.
3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost.
(Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)
4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.
THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES
The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.
The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties
Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.
It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).
So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.
But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.
ENDING CONFLATION WITH DEFLATION
Conflation and De-conflation (or Deflation) in Argument1 – CONFLATION TO COMMUNICATE VS DECONFLATION TO INNOVATE
I’m not necessarily objecting to the conflation of experience, action, observation, and existence, because otherwise we could not produce literature and art, the purpose of which is loading and framing in order to attribute value through shared experience, to ideas. But I want to point out the consequences of conflationary( monopoly ) and deflationary (competing) models by which civilizations produce and use knowledge.
2 – DECONFLATION AND COMPETITION VS CONFLATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM
In the western tradition, we maintained separate disciplines for Law, Religion, and ….well… “Theory”, or what we call ‘science”. Or Religion: what we should do, Theory, how we do it, and Law, what we must not do. In the west , our civic disciplines are divided into the common law; contractual politics that are limited by that common law;
Our celebrations and festivals and art function as our ‘church’ experience (bonding), and our mythology as our literature (aspirations).
Our science and technology and commerce function as their own discipline inspired by religion and limited by law.
Our success at discovering truth proper (scientific truth) is due to our evolution of empirical contractual law, independent of the state, independent of religion,
We divided the related properties of existence, and thereby deflated them just as all human thought consists of a process of deflation (increasing information), free association (pattern recognition), and hypothesis (ideation).
3 – COMPARISONS
Other civilizations that did NOT start with sovereign contractualism did not do this, and they retained conflation, in order to retain authoritarianism. (fertile crescent, east Asia). Monotheism, uniting law, religion, and even a pretense of existence into a literature, created the most conflationary totalitarianism yet developed. Law, politics, religion, and science deflated those same concepts and left them not only open to further investigation and evolution, but prevented the deception that arose from the conflation of manipulation of the physical world(cafts and science), dispute resolution(law), cooperative action(trade), common aspiration(religion), and education.
The result in every civilization and in every era is that conflation led to stagnation. and deflation led to innovation. (We can go through every civilization. Fukuyama does it for us actually.)
4 – WE ALL SEEK TO ESCAPE THE COST OF DUE DILIGENCE
All of us seek opportunities and aspirational information provides us with opportunities. We all want something for nothing, and we feel intellectual opportunities are the most valuable ‘freebie’ we can obtain. Moreover, we can read books and decide ourselves, rather than enter into production of goods and services, production of commons, production of arts, or production of offspring – all of which require cooperation with those who differ in knowledge, opinion and desire from us. Which is why many of us seek to use philosophy, like religion, like science, as an authoritarian method of decidability rather than a voluntary exchange of promises, contracts, goods, services, commons, and liabilities.
All of us seek to avoid limits upon us, and so we seek to separate the limits of cost, and the limits of morality, the limits of cooperation, and the limits of law, and by doing so the limits of reality. Philosophy notoriously throughout history differs from Law and science, by ignoring costs (effort, resources, time, and money), which is why it’s failed to retain independence from religion in the modern academy.
5 – THE ENLIGHTENMENTS AND THEIR OPPOSITIONS
The Anglo enlightenment, beginning with Bacon’s creation of empiricism by applying the methods of the common law, to the methods of scientific investigation, was terribly disruptive to the non-contractual peoples, even though it was natural to the Anglo-Saxons (north sea peoples) who had been operating a contractual government since at least the 700’s if not earlier. The English revolution was painful but was eventually settled by contract – as is traditional in Anglo-Saxon civilization, and remains today in the USA.
The French enlightenment was written as a literature of moral persuasion, in order to protect itself from empiricism and contractualism. And its revolution destroyed French civilization, created state currency financed total war, and force the uniting of German princedoms in response. That this effort was merely an attack on the land holders in both private (noble) and church hands is obvious to us. That this ended French contribution to western civilization is less so. That it has been the sponsor for Marxism and Islamism are less obvious. France fell from the stage and without interference from other nations would be German colony today.
The German enlightenment used not empiricism, and not moral literature, but rationalist literature (Kant) in order to protect its social order from empiricism and contractualism that threatened the hierarchy that constitutes German ‘duty’. Kant replaced Germanic Christianity not with science but with rationalist literature. He spawned the continental philosophical movement retaining conflation which has tried every bit of verbal trickery to retain conflation while proposing alternate methods of INTERPRETING and VALUING what we experience, but not better methods of ACTING upon the universe we exist within. in other words, the Germans remain desperate to restore religion. Unfortunately, the Germans were cut short in their maturity by the entrapment between the Bolshevik/soviets who wanted to obtain eastern Europe, and conquer Europe, to defeat deflationary empirical contractualism – and the Anglos who wanted to maintain the balance of power. And the Germans who had spread what remains of Hanseatic civilization across central and eastern Europe with members of her own nation, and wished to defend them.
The Jewish enlightenment expanded on the French and German by creating the great authoritarian pseudosciences: Boazian anthropology (ant-Darwinian), Freudian psychology (anti-Nietzsche restorationism), and Marxist socialist (anti contractualism), and even Cantorian mathematical Platonism (anti-materialism), Frankfurt-school criticism (anti aristocratic ethics), and combined it not just with press, but with new mass media, and new consumers with disposable income from the consumer capitalist industrial revolution. Out of the Jewish enlightenment, we get the horrors of the Bolsheviks, the soviets, the Maoists, and world communism. 100M dead. And at present, we are about to lose Europe for the second time in two thousand years to another wave of ignorance.
Without bolshevism and communism we would very likely never had the world wars, and would still retain the best system of government ever evolved by man: Juridical monarchy, a market for commons by houses representing classes, a market for goods and services, and a market for reproduction, all under the rule of law.
6 – THE COST OF CONFLATION AND DECEPTION
What has been the cost of each of these failed enlightenments? What has been the cost of the Jewish alone? What of napoleon? The British was a trivial tribal dispute between the (failed) corporate-republicans and the (successful) national-monarchists.
What if the British enlightenment hadn’t been cut short by the conflicts (counter enlightenments) of the French, German, Jewish and Russians? What if the Greeks had finished their invention of the industrial revolution? What if Justinian hadn’t closed the stoic and Greek schools, and forcibly indoctrinated Europeans into mysticism instead of literacy and reason? What if the RESTORATION OF DECONFLATION imposed on the west by the first great deception of authoritarian monotheism had not been necessary?
Most of the great lies in history are created by conflation, and all our great achievements in dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty have been achieved through information provided by deflation and competition.
SO while as a human I can empathize with the desire to assist in COMMUNICATION through conflation – thereby allowing us to impose values upon ideas, during education, and allowing us to experience life through the words of other minds. That is very different from the act of conflation in philosophy which appears in large part, whether literary philosophy, moral philosophy, or religious philosophy, to be nothing more than the use of subterfuge (the use of suggestion under the influence of suspension of disbelief), to cause either submission or agitation by artful deceit.
So just as we must have communication and education (conflation) we must have analysis and prosecution(deflation). Without both tools, (literature for education, law for deflation) we cannot protect ourselves from the greatest crimes in history.
Because outside of the great plagues, philosophers and prophets are responsible for more death and destruction, ignorance and poverty, susceptibility to starvation and disease than any general ever dreamed of being.
So contrary to giving philosophers a license to special pleading, my position is that the evidence is in, and that unless words are backed by warranty that they do no harm, the are no different from any other product of man. And that while no producer of goods, services, and ideas, wishes to be accountable and to warranty his materials, actions, and words, that we must constrain those people such that no intellectual products, like no services, and like no material goods can enter the market for knowledge any more so than goods and services can enter the market for consumption.
My assessment of history is that the jurists and scientist do all the work, and the prophets and the philosophers take all the credit, and us it like today’s marketers and advertisers for personal gain despite the drastic consequences of their deceptions.
So I tend to damn philosophy or literature that is objectively criminal, regardless of the intentions of the producers and distributors of it.
7 – WHY CAN WE NOT WARRANTY OUR SPEECH?
I have no idea why, in an era of mass manufacture and distribution of information that we do not require the same increase in due diligence against harm, that we have incrementally added to the production of goods and services.
If we can police polite speech (political correctness) against shame by the true, then why can we not police philosophical speech against damage by the false and immoral?
We cannot ever know what is good or true until we test them. We can, however, know that is bad and false.
If it is bad and false we can either regulate(prior constraint) in the continental model, or enforce involuntary warranty(post facto restitution) in the American model. My opinion is that regulation creates corruption and restitution creates quality.
So as to your preference for conflationary philosophy, I would say that as long as you would warranty that your conflation does not harm, then it seem you have nothing to worry about. But if your use of conflation does harm, then you do.
And if we had the same defense against deception that we have against every other kind of fraud, that there would be very few philosophers – and the few we had, would be of much higher caliber rather than simply those who write the rationalist equivalent of science fiction and fantasy, under the pretense of possibility, thus inspiring people to the social equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre.
8 – CLOSING
There is only one moral law of nature: do no harm. Everything that does not harm, is by definition good. One thing may be better good than another. But that is a matter of preference and taste, not of truth,
No free rides. No special pleading. Ideas produce more harm than material goods by orders of magnitudes.
THE LOGIC OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.
2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs. cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo European genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) Take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) Identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) Identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) Determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.
7) Fully expand all sentences in operational grammar.
You will not be able to construct a positive argument unless you are honest and truthful, and understand what it is that you seek to exchange.
You will easily identify:
8) When you have a complete description of all actors, actions, property in toto, and transfers you will have constructed a proof. But you must understand what a proof means: it means it is possible. There may be other proofs that produce the same or different descriptions (algorithms). But you will rapidly defeat all arguments that attempt to advocate for an involuntary transfer or cost imposition.
AN EXAMPLE: EXPANDING A SENTENCE
(undone) (use liars paradox as an example)
AN EXAMPLE: DEFINING A TERM
QUESTION: “WHAT IS EVIL?”ANALYSIS:1) Analyze the Question: The question itself is misleading – the phrasing is a parlor trick. It takes advantage of the victim’s susceptibility to historical and moral Framing: the victim naturally desires to answer the question as stated even though the use of the generic verb ‘is’ frames the answer. Many Victorian parlor tricks posed false moral dilemmas as a means of providing entertainment. This question is constructed in that same manner. The question should instead be phrased as either “Define Evil” or more thoroughly “Given that we use the term evil in a variety of contexts what does the term mean in those contexts – i.e.: subjective analysis. Given the set of meanings in those contexts, are any or all of those meanings impossible or self-contradictory? i.e.: objective analysis. And of what remains, can such a thing as evil exist?”
2) Explore Evolutionary History: What can we learn from the evolution of the term?
Answer:
There is a term we call “Evil”.
The term has an etymology – a history – a time at which it was invented.
The meaning of the term was originally political – to denote ‘a competing way of life against our interests’.
The term was then expanded by analogy to address individual actions.
The term was then anthropomorphically expanded by analogy to cover random (natural) events.
The term was then applied as a criticism of monotheistic divinity in order to illustrate a self contradiction.
The term is now – post Darwin and under democratic secular socialism– becoming loaded and archaic.
Like most things, understanding something’s history tells us far more than understanding its current state.
3) Collect All Possible Examples: What are all the examples we can think of, or find that refer to the term in context? Both in-group (culture) and out-group?
Answer: Murder. Sibling murder. Killing an ant. Undermining institutions. Creating a moral hazard. Selling an immoral product. Plotting terrorism. What about the DC sniper versus the top military sniper? The list is long, and I’m not going to be creative here, other that to suggest that any inventory of examples we create has to be fairly large, and cover the individual, institutional, local political, cultural-political, and geo-political spectrums if this exercise will have any value.
4) Determine Population Dimension: Does the term apply to individuals or groups or both?
Answer: Both. From our examples, it applies to both individuals and groups of both actors and victims.
5) Determine Time Dimension: What about different economic eras? Are ‘evil and immoral’ considered to be different under hunter-gathering, agrarian, manorial, industrial, urban technological eras?
Answer: yes. Markedly so. Hunter gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and urban ethics are markedly different.
6) Separate Actions from Actors from Consequences: What is the difference between an evil person and an evil action, or an evil semi-autonomous process (a virus, or a viral meme)?
Answer: A person is evil with intention and repetition. An action produces evil results regardless of intention, and is evil only by analogy. A process produces evil results but is only evil by analogy.
7) Separate Subjective from Objective: Emotions – how do emotions play into determining ill mannered, unethical, immoral and evil actions, individuals and groups??
Answer:
a) Emotions are descriptions of changes in state of perception of an individual’s assets. Moreover, they are reactions to descriptions of changes in state of capital. (Yes, really.) Nothing more. Given the differences in knowledge and experience (and intelligence) emotions are subjective descriptions of the perception of each individual’s inventory.
b) Empathy is an ability to imitate the experience of the change in state of other individuals. It is pre-verbal communication of changes in property (capital).
8) Narrow the definition until it is exclusive: What can we learn by determining what is not considered ‘Evil’, or which is covered by other terms?
What ‘bad actions’ are not classified as evil?
Answer? Accidents. And errors that are not repeated.
9) Determine Limits Of The Cases: What is the difference between ill mannered, unethical, immoral, and evil actions? Are displays of bad manners evil? Is someone unethical classifiable as evil? Is someone immoral classifiable as evil? Aren’t unethical and immoral lower bars than evil? Why?
Answer: because we are all unethical and immoral at times, but evil we tend to think of ‘evil’ as repetitive systemic and intentional.
But let’s look at this carefully: lets say we have a diamond ring dealer that preys upon the dreams of the poor by selling them low-down-payment engagement rings at very high interest rates. (This example is from real life.) Then when they default on the payments he repossesses the ring, pulls the diamond for resale and melts it down. What about the mortgage broker who sold all those mortgages before the crash to people who couldn’t afford them? What about the Marxist who, despite the evidence of near genocidal consequences, still advocates Marxism? What about the Christian scientist who prays rather than takes a child to the hospital? What about the mother who advocates avoiding shots for her children? What is the difference between stealing water, and poisoning a well?
10) Further Refine into a spectrum: What is unique to ‘Evil’ that is not unique to ill-mannered, unethical, and immoral actions?
Answer: Knowledge (intent), Destruction, and Frequency (repetition).
Ignorance is pervasive, so a single instance that one learns from is not evil, but accidental. Repetitive actions can no longer be made in ignorance.
11) Identify Remaining Causal Dimensions: Are any of the properties we have discovered possible to express in consolidated form as a continuum?
Yes, the following continuum can be composed from the discussion:
a) ACTORS: Individual->Group->Extra-Group->”Nature”
b) VICTIMS: Individual->group->Humanity->Life->Universe
c) KNOWLEDGE: Accidental/Made_In_Ignorance->Intentional/Made_With_Knowledge->Systemic/Habitual/Made_Without_Intent
d) CAPITAL: Accumulation->Transfers->Destruction
e) FREQUENCY: One-Time->Repetitive->Pervasive
12) Graph Dimensions: Is it possible to graph these continuum in order to show their dependence upon one another (taking into consideration that more than three dimensions is difficult for humans to comprehend.)
Answer: Yes. We can create six or eight before they become repetitive.
[Graph any two axis, and then attempt to add third, then repeat permutations until all are covered.]
EVALUATION
What do these graphs tell us about objective evil? And about evil by analogy?
a) To the actor(s), knowledge is the only relevant criteria for determining whether he is objectively evil or not.
b) To the victim, capital is only relevant if a transfer or destruction of capital is created. Meaning that there is a standard that must be met in order to qualify as ‘evil’.
c) To the victim, the actor’s knowledge is only relevant if frequency is repetitive and the actor is a group or individual.
Therefore, the necessary and sufficient definition of the term ‘Evil’ consists of repetitive transfer or destruction of capital.
(NOTE: This definition applies to the divinity argument as well, since by definition, the divine is all powerful and eternal and therefore repetitive.)
PROPOSITION:
P.1) ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic destruction of capital – individual or social, by individuals, groups, or ‘nature’. Conversely, ‘Good’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic accumulation of capital – individual or social, by individuals groups or ‘nature’.
P.2) ‘Immoral’ is a term that refers to anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Moral’ is a term that refers to refraining from conducting anonymous involuntary transfers of capital due to informational asymmetry.
P.3) ‘Unethical’ is a term that refers to non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Ethical’ is a term that refers to refraining from non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry.
P.4) ‘Ill-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous failure to contribute to normative capital – privatization (theft) of social capital stored in norms. Conversely, ‘well-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous contribution to normative capital by habitual demonstration of adherence to norms.
WHERE:
a) ‘Capital’ consists of life, body, several property, communal (shareholder) property, informal institutions (morals, ethics, manners, myths), formal institutions (laws, government).
b) ‘Transfers’ consists of the movement capital from one set of one or more people to another set of one or more people.
c) The normative composition of capital, property, and institutions varies from social group to social group.
d) The primary purpose of ‘manners’ is ‘Signaling’. (i.e.: class status and demonstrated fitness to the group for the purpose of mate selection and association, and pedagogy through imitation.)
NOTE: I am unsure whether ‘capital’ in these contexts also includes opportunities. I think that ‘opportunities’ may be forced expressly outside of all ethical systems that allow for competition (research and development). Any ethical system that did not allow for competition would not survive contact with those that do. In this sense, it is possible to have ‘bad’ ethical systems and ‘good’ ethical systems depending upon one’s time preference.
ASSERTION:
1) I believe it will not be possible to define Good and Evil, Moral, and Immoral, Ethical, and Unethical, or well-mannered, and Ill-mannered, by any other form of demarcation that would not be answered by this set of propositions.
CONCLUSION:
‘Evil’ is an archaic term that is heavily loaded with mystical connotations– primarily because it has been politically loaded by the consumer class’ public intellectuals in their desire to undermine the social and political status of the church so that they could obtaining status through control of the public dialog. (Which in itself is an economic and political process.)
Evil exists as an objective political and economic classification of human actions and effects. Groups can be classified as evil, and individuals can be classified as evil, if they take actions that produce outcomes that systemically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. Abstract entities (nature, god) an be classified as evil by analogy because they destroy capital. Ideas can be classified as evil, and abstract processes can be classified by analogy as evil if they produce outcomes that systematically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital.
i.e. Marxism is evil. It may be the ultimate evil that man has yet discovered, since it destroys the institutions that make cooperation in a division of labor possible. Its arguable either way whether, as Nietzsche stated, that the most evil person in history is Zoroaster. And from both an eastern and western perspective, if not Zoroaster, then at least Abraham is a candidate for the most evil person in history. But the monotheistic religions pale compared to the deadliness of Marxism.
PROSECUTION VS JUSTIFICATION
The end of victorian presumption in argument
(how to prosecute, assuming avoidance of reciprocity, assuming theft, survival from falsification, survival from externalities….)
This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well.
Definitions
Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.)
One Law of Cooperation.
The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended).
Acquisitionism and Property In Toto
The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet.
Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions
The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language.
Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure)
Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know.
Structuring Arguments as Functions
Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’.
Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression
The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.
STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Strictly Constructed Law And Contract
It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.
The Structure of a Program or Contract
————————————————————
1 – Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist)
2 – Returns (and whereas we wish to produce these ends)
3 – Constants and Variables (definitions constructed)
4 – Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”)
5 – Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions)
6 – Functions (clauses that can be performed)
7 – Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses)
8 – Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value)
9 – Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:
1 – Productive
2 – Fully informed (and truthful)
3 – Warrantied
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.
THE GRAMMAR
Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like English requires more planning than other languages do already.
For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.
EXPLANATION
Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.
Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.
So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.
OPERATIONAL GRAMMARactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, resultactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false).”
In Sovereignty (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(Acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.
FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW
If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.
{terms and definitions }-We … (who)-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).-Signed…. -Juried…. …. -Adjudicated.…. …. …. -Recorded.
This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of Anglo-Saxons that Jefferson and Adams attempted to formalize in the US constitution – but failed.
Our principal function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the American experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the English experience, and thousands of years of the various Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Aryan European traditions.
BREAKING THE WORST HABIT: THE COPULA
WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘IS’ MEAN? (THE “COPULA”)
” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “
The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat you will perceive it as the color black, as will anyone else that observes it.”
WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE?
If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.
IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO:
1) Exists (identity)
3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time)
2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties)
4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)
We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.
MISUSE
We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order:
1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.
2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.
3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost.
(Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)
4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.
THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES
The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.
The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties
Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.
It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).
So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.
But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.
ENDING CONFLATION WITH DEFLATION
Conflation and De-conflation (or Deflation) in Argument1 – CONFLATION TO COMMUNICATE VS DECONFLATION TO INNOVATE
I’m not necessarily objecting to the conflation of experience, action, observation, and existence, because otherwise we could not produce literature and art, the purpose of which is loading and framing in order to attribute value through shared experience, to ideas. But I want to point out the consequences of conflationary( monopoly ) and deflationary (competing) models by which civilizations produce and use knowledge.
2 – DECONFLATION AND COMPETITION VS CONFLATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM
In the western tradition, we maintained separate disciplines for Law, Religion, and ….well… “Theory”, or what we call ‘science”. Or Religion: what we should do, Theory, how we do it, and Law, what we must not do. In the west , our civic disciplines are divided into the common law; contractual politics that are limited by that common law;
Our celebrations and festivals and art function as our ‘church’ experience (bonding), and our mythology as our literature (aspirations).
Our science and technology and commerce function as their own discipline inspired by religion and limited by law.
Our success at discovering truth proper (scientific truth) is due to our evolution of empirical contractual law, independent of the state, independent of religion,
We divided the related properties of existence, and thereby deflated them just as all human thought consists of a process of deflation (increasing information), free association (pattern recognition), and hypothesis (ideation).
3 – COMPARISONS
Other civilizations that did NOT start with sovereign contractualism did not do this, and they retained conflation, in order to retain authoritarianism. (fertile crescent, east Asia). Monotheism, uniting law, religion, and even a pretense of existence into a literature, created the most conflationary totalitarianism yet developed. Law, politics, religion, and science deflated those same concepts and left them not only open to further investigation and evolution, but prevented the deception that arose from the conflation of manipulation of the physical world(cafts and science), dispute resolution(law), cooperative action(trade), common aspiration(religion), and education.
The result in every civilization and in every era is that conflation led to stagnation. and deflation led to innovation. (We can go through every civilization. Fukuyama does it for us actually.)
4 – WE ALL SEEK TO ESCAPE THE COST OF DUE DILIGENCE
All of us seek opportunities and aspirational information provides us with opportunities. We all want something for nothing, and we feel intellectual opportunities are the most valuable ‘freebie’ we can obtain. Moreover, we can read books and decide ourselves, rather than enter into production of goods and services, production of commons, production of arts, or production of offspring – all of which require cooperation with those who differ in knowledge, opinion and desire from us. Which is why many of us seek to use philosophy, like religion, like science, as an authoritarian method of decidability rather than a voluntary exchange of promises, contracts, goods, services, commons, and liabilities.
All of us seek to avoid limits upon us, and so we seek to separate the limits of cost, and the limits of morality, the limits of cooperation, and the limits of law, and by doing so the limits of reality. Philosophy notoriously throughout history differs from Law and science, by ignoring costs (effort, resources, time, and money), which is why it’s failed to retain independence from religion in the modern academy.
5 – THE ENLIGHTENMENTS AND THEIR OPPOSITIONS
The Anglo enlightenment, beginning with Bacon’s creation of empiricism by applying the methods of the common law, to the methods of scientific investigation, was terribly disruptive to the non-contractual peoples, even though it was natural to the Anglo-Saxons (north sea peoples) who had been operating a contractual government since at least the 700’s if not earlier. The English revolution was painful but was eventually settled by contract – as is traditional in Anglo-Saxon civilization, and remains today in the USA.
The French enlightenment was written as a literature of moral persuasion, in order to protect itself from empiricism and contractualism. And its revolution destroyed French civilization, created state currency financed total war, and force the uniting of German princedoms in response. That this effort was merely an attack on the land holders in both private (noble) and church hands is obvious to us. That this ended French contribution to western civilization is less so. That it has been the sponsor for Marxism and Islamism are less obvious. France fell from the stage and without interference from other nations would be German colony today.
The German enlightenment used not empiricism, and not moral literature, but rationalist literature (Kant) in order to protect its social order from empiricism and contractualism that threatened the hierarchy that constitutes German ‘duty’. Kant replaced Germanic Christianity not with science but with rationalist literature. He spawned the continental philosophical movement retaining conflation which has tried every bit of verbal trickery to retain conflation while proposing alternate methods of INTERPRETING and VALUING what we experience, but not better methods of ACTING upon the universe we exist within. in other words, the Germans remain desperate to restore religion. Unfortunately, the Germans were cut short in their maturity by the entrapment between the Bolshevik/soviets who wanted to obtain eastern Europe, and conquer Europe, to defeat deflationary empirical contractualism – and the Anglos who wanted to maintain the balance of power. And the Germans who had spread what remains of Hanseatic civilization across central and eastern Europe with members of her own nation, and wished to defend them.
The Jewish enlightenment expanded on the French and German by creating the great authoritarian pseudosciences: Boazian anthropology (ant-Darwinian), Freudian psychology (anti-Nietzsche restorationism), and Marxist socialist (anti contractualism), and even Cantorian mathematical Platonism (anti-materialism), Frankfurt-school criticism (anti aristocratic ethics), and combined it not just with press, but with new mass media, and new consumers with disposable income from the consumer capitalist industrial revolution. Out of the Jewish enlightenment, we get the horrors of the Bolsheviks, the soviets, the Maoists, and world communism. 100M dead. And at present, we are about to lose Europe for the second time in two thousand years to another wave of ignorance.
Without bolshevism and communism we would very likely never had the world wars, and would still retain the best system of government ever evolved by man: Juridical monarchy, a market for commons by houses representing classes, a market for goods and services, and a market for reproduction, all under the rule of law.
6 – THE COST OF CONFLATION AND DECEPTION
What has been the cost of each of these failed enlightenments? What has been the cost of the Jewish alone? What of napoleon? The British was a trivial tribal dispute between the (failed) corporate-republicans and the (successful) national-monarchists.
What if the British enlightenment hadn’t been cut short by the conflicts (counter enlightenments) of the French, German, Jewish and Russians? What if the Greeks had finished their invention of the industrial revolution? What if Justinian hadn’t closed the stoic and Greek schools, and forcibly indoctrinated Europeans into mysticism instead of literacy and reason? What if the RESTORATION OF DECONFLATION imposed on the west by the first great deception of authoritarian monotheism had not been necessary?
Most of the great lies in history are created by conflation, and all our great achievements in dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty have been achieved through information provided by deflation and competition.
SO while as a human I can empathize with the desire to assist in COMMUNICATION through conflation – thereby allowing us to impose values upon ideas, during education, and allowing us to experience life through the words of other minds. That is very different from the act of conflation in philosophy which appears in large part, whether literary philosophy, moral philosophy, or religious philosophy, to be nothing more than the use of subterfuge (the use of suggestion under the influence of suspension of disbelief), to cause either submission or agitation by artful deceit.
So just as we must have communication and education (conflation) we must have analysis and prosecution(deflation). Without both tools, (literature for education, law for deflation) we cannot protect ourselves from the greatest crimes in history.
Because outside of the great plagues, philosophers and prophets are responsible for more death and destruction, ignorance and poverty, susceptibility to starvation and disease than any general ever dreamed of being.
So contrary to giving philosophers a license to special pleading, my position is that the evidence is in, and that unless words are backed by warranty that they do no harm, the are no different from any other product of man. And that while no producer of goods, services, and ideas, wishes to be accountable and to warranty his materials, actions, and words, that we must constrain those people such that no intellectual products, like no services, and like no material goods can enter the market for knowledge any more so than goods and services can enter the market for consumption.
My assessment of history is that the jurists and scientist do all the work, and the prophets and the philosophers take all the credit, and us it like today’s marketers and advertisers for personal gain despite the drastic consequences of their deceptions.
So I tend to damn philosophy or literature that is objectively criminal, regardless of the intentions of the producers and distributors of it.
7 – WHY CAN WE NOT WARRANTY OUR SPEECH?
I have no idea why, in an era of mass manufacture and distribution of information that we do not require the same increase in due diligence against harm, that we have incrementally added to the production of goods and services.
If we can police polite speech (political correctness) against shame by the true, then why can we not police philosophical speech against damage by the false and immoral?
We cannot ever know what is good or true until we test them. We can, however, know that is bad and false.
If it is bad and false we can either regulate(prior constraint) in the continental model, or enforce involuntary warranty(post facto restitution) in the American model. My opinion is that regulation creates corruption and restitution creates quality.
So as to your preference for conflationary philosophy, I would say that as long as you would warranty that your conflation does not harm, then it seem you have nothing to worry about. But if your use of conflation does harm, then you do.
And if we had the same defense against deception that we have against every other kind of fraud, that there would be very few philosophers – and the few we had, would be of much higher caliber rather than simply those who write the rationalist equivalent of science fiction and fantasy, under the pretense of possibility, thus inspiring people to the social equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre.
8 – CLOSING
There is only one moral law of nature: do no harm. Everything that does not harm, is by definition good. One thing may be better good than another. But that is a matter of preference and taste, not of truth,
No free rides. No special pleading. Ideas produce more harm than material goods by orders of magnitudes.
THE LOGIC OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.
2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs. cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo European genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) Take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) Identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) Identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) Determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.
7) Fully expand all sentences in operational grammar.
You will not be able to construct a positive argument unless you are honest and truthful, and understand what it is that you seek to exchange.
You will easily identify:
8) When you have a complete description of all actors, actions, property in toto, and transfers you will have constructed a proof. But you must understand what a proof means: it means it is possible. There may be other proofs that produce the same or different descriptions (algorithms). But you will rapidly defeat all arguments that attempt to advocate for an involuntary transfer or cost imposition.
AN EXAMPLE: EXPANDING A SENTENCE
(undone) (use liars paradox as an example)
AN EXAMPLE: DEFINING A TERM
QUESTION: “WHAT IS EVIL?”ANALYSIS:1) Analyze the Question: The question itself is misleading – the phrasing is a parlor trick. It takes advantage of the victim’s susceptibility to historical and moral Framing: the victim naturally desires to answer the question as stated even though the use of the generic verb ‘is’ frames the answer. Many Victorian parlor tricks posed false moral dilemmas as a means of providing entertainment. This question is constructed in that same manner. The question should instead be phrased as either “Define Evil” or more thoroughly “Given that we use the term evil in a variety of contexts what does the term mean in those contexts – i.e.: subjective analysis. Given the set of meanings in those contexts, are any or all of those meanings impossible or self-contradictory? i.e.: objective analysis. And of what remains, can such a thing as evil exist?”
2) Explore Evolutionary History: What can we learn from the evolution of the term?
Answer:
There is a term we call “Evil”.
The term has an etymology – a history – a time at which it was invented.
The meaning of the term was originally political – to denote ‘a competing way of life against our interests’.
The term was then expanded by analogy to address individual actions.
The term was then anthropomorphically expanded by analogy to cover random (natural) events.
The term was then applied as a criticism of monotheistic divinity in order to illustrate a self contradiction.
The term is now – post Darwin and under democratic secular socialism– becoming loaded and archaic.
Like most things, understanding something’s history tells us far more than understanding its current state.
3) Collect All Possible Examples: What are all the examples we can think of, or find that refer to the term in context? Both in-group (culture) and out-group?
Answer: Murder. Sibling murder. Killing an ant. Undermining institutions. Creating a moral hazard. Selling an immoral product. Plotting terrorism. What about the DC sniper versus the top military sniper? The list is long, and I’m not going to be creative here, other that to suggest that any inventory of examples we create has to be fairly large, and cover the individual, institutional, local political, cultural-political, and geo-political spectrums if this exercise will have any value.
4) Determine Population Dimension: Does the term apply to individuals or groups or both?
Answer: Both. From our examples, it applies to both individuals and groups of both actors and victims.
5) Determine Time Dimension: What about different economic eras? Are ‘evil and immoral’ considered to be different under hunter-gathering, agrarian, manorial, industrial, urban technological eras?
Answer: yes. Markedly so. Hunter gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and urban ethics are markedly different.
6) Separate Actions from Actors from Consequences: What is the difference between an evil person and an evil action, or an evil semi-autonomous process (a virus, or a viral meme)?
Answer: A person is evil with intention and repetition. An action produces evil results regardless of intention, and is evil only by analogy. A process produces evil results but is only evil by analogy.
7) Separate Subjective from Objective: Emotions – how do emotions play into determining ill mannered, unethical, immoral and evil actions, individuals and groups??
Answer:
a) Emotions are descriptions of changes in state of perception of an individual’s assets. Moreover, they are reactions to descriptions of changes in state of capital. (Yes, really.) Nothing more. Given the differences in knowledge and experience (and intelligence) emotions are subjective descriptions of the perception of each individual’s inventory.
b) Empathy is an ability to imitate the experience of the change in state of other individuals. It is pre-verbal communication of changes in property (capital).
8) Narrow the definition until it is exclusive: What can we learn by determining what is not considered ‘Evil’, or which is covered by other terms?
What ‘bad actions’ are not classified as evil?
Answer? Accidents. And errors that are not repeated.
9) Determine Limits Of The Cases: What is the difference between ill mannered, unethical, immoral, and evil actions? Are displays of bad manners evil? Is someone unethical classifiable as evil? Is someone immoral classifiable as evil? Aren’t unethical and immoral lower bars than evil? Why?
Answer: because we are all unethical and immoral at times, but evil we tend to think of ‘evil’ as repetitive systemic and intentional.
But let’s look at this carefully: lets say we have a diamond ring dealer that preys upon the dreams of the poor by selling them low-down-payment engagement rings at very high interest rates. (This example is from real life.) Then when they default on the payments he repossesses the ring, pulls the diamond for resale and melts it down. What about the mortgage broker who sold all those mortgages before the crash to people who couldn’t afford them? What about the Marxist who, despite the evidence of near genocidal consequences, still advocates Marxism? What about the Christian scientist who prays rather than takes a child to the hospital? What about the mother who advocates avoiding shots for her children? What is the difference between stealing water, and poisoning a well?
10) Further Refine into a spectrum: What is unique to ‘Evil’ that is not unique to ill-mannered, unethical, and immoral actions?
Answer: Knowledge (intent), Destruction, and Frequency (repetition).
Ignorance is pervasive, so a single instance that one learns from is not evil, but accidental. Repetitive actions can no longer be made in ignorance.
11) Identify Remaining Causal Dimensions: Are any of the properties we have discovered possible to express in consolidated form as a continuum?
Yes, the following continuum can be composed from the discussion:
a) ACTORS: Individual->Group->Extra-Group->”Nature”
b) VICTIMS: Individual->group->Humanity->Life->Universe
c) KNOWLEDGE: Accidental/Made_In_Ignorance->Intentional/Made_With_Knowledge->Systemic/Habitual/Made_Without_Intent
d) CAPITAL: Accumulation->Transfers->Destruction
e) FREQUENCY: One-Time->Repetitive->Pervasive
12) Graph Dimensions: Is it possible to graph these continuum in order to show their dependence upon one another (taking into consideration that more than three dimensions is difficult for humans to comprehend.)
Answer: Yes. We can create six or eight before they become repetitive.
[Graph any two axis, and then attempt to add third, then repeat permutations until all are covered.]
EVALUATION
What do these graphs tell us about objective evil? And about evil by analogy?
a) To the actor(s), knowledge is the only relevant criteria for determining whether he is objectively evil or not.
b) To the victim, capital is only relevant if a transfer or destruction of capital is created. Meaning that there is a standard that must be met in order to qualify as ‘evil’.
c) To the victim, the actor’s knowledge is only relevant if frequency is repetitive and the actor is a group or individual.
Therefore, the necessary and sufficient definition of the term ‘Evil’ consists of repetitive transfer or destruction of capital.
(NOTE: This definition applies to the divinity argument as well, since by definition, the divine is all powerful and eternal and therefore repetitive.)
PROPOSITION:
P.1) ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic destruction of capital – individual or social, by individuals, groups, or ‘nature’. Conversely, ‘Good’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic accumulation of capital – individual or social, by individuals groups or ‘nature’.
P.2) ‘Immoral’ is a term that refers to anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Moral’ is a term that refers to refraining from conducting anonymous involuntary transfers of capital due to informational asymmetry.
P.3) ‘Unethical’ is a term that refers to non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Ethical’ is a term that refers to refraining from non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry.
P.4) ‘Ill-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous failure to contribute to normative capital – privatization (theft) of social capital stored in norms. Conversely, ‘well-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous contribution to normative capital by habitual demonstration of adherence to norms.
WHERE:
a) ‘Capital’ consists of life, body, several property, communal (shareholder) property, informal institutions (morals, ethics, manners, myths), formal institutions (laws, government).
b) ‘Transfers’ consists of the movement capital from one set of one or more people to another set of one or more people.
c) The normative composition of capital, property, and institutions varies from social group to social group.
d) The primary purpose of ‘manners’ is ‘Signaling’. (i.e.: class status and demonstrated fitness to the group for the purpose of mate selection and association, and pedagogy through imitation.)
NOTE: I am unsure whether ‘capital’ in these contexts also includes opportunities. I think that ‘opportunities’ may be forced expressly outside of all ethical systems that allow for competition (research and development). Any ethical system that did not allow for competition would not survive contact with those that do. In this sense, it is possible to have ‘bad’ ethical systems and ‘good’ ethical systems depending upon one’s time preference.
ASSERTION:
1) I believe it will not be possible to define Good and Evil, Moral, and Immoral, Ethical, and Unethical, or well-mannered, and Ill-mannered, by any other form of demarcation that would not be answered by this set of propositions.
CONCLUSION:
‘Evil’ is an archaic term that is heavily loaded with mystical connotations– primarily because it has been politically loaded by the consumer class’ public intellectuals in their desire to undermine the social and political status of the church so that they could obtaining status through control of the public dialog. (Which in itself is an economic and political process.)
Evil exists as an objective political and economic classification of human actions and effects. Groups can be classified as evil, and individuals can be classified as evil, if they take actions that produce outcomes that systemically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. Abstract entities (nature, god) an be classified as evil by analogy because they destroy capital. Ideas can be classified as evil, and abstract processes can be classified by analogy as evil if they produce outcomes that systematically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital.
i.e. Marxism is evil. It may be the ultimate evil that man has yet discovered, since it destroys the institutions that make cooperation in a division of labor possible. Its arguable either way whether, as Nietzsche stated, that the most evil person in history is Zoroaster. And from both an eastern and western perspective, if not Zoroaster, then at least Abraham is a candidate for the most evil person in history. But the monotheistic religions pale compared to the deadliness of Marxism.
PROSECUTION VS JUSTIFICATION
The end of victorian presumption in argument
(how to prosecute, assuming avoidance of reciprocity, assuming theft, survival from falsification, survival from externalities….)
Science: A Warranty of Due Diligence
SCIENCE: The use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, Fictionalism and deceit from our free-associations by the systematic deflation and attempted falsification (survival) from criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits – and coherent across those dimensions.
Science is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully:
— We test our categories using differences to eliminate conflation.
— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency.
— We test our observations with external correspondence.
— We test the existence of our premises with operations.
— We test the rationality and volition of choice through sympathy
— We test the reciprocity and volition of choice through changes in capital
— We test the scope of our theory with falsifications.
Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm.
The central argument regarding truth:
1) That in order to cooperate, humans evolved sympathy for intent – and are marginally indifferent in their judgment of intentions. This allows us to sympathetically test most human incentives if subject to the same stimuli (information). It is also why juries can functions, since this sympathetic testing of intentions is the criteria by which juries render decisions.
2) That however, we cannot sympathize with the first principles of the physical universe – the equivalent of intentions. So while we intuit and can test man’s intentions, we cannot measure and test the universe’s first principles. As such, the best we can do is testify to observations and measurements of those phenomenon until at some point we know those first principles – if that is ever possible.
3) But our observations must also be reduced to stimuli that can be sympathetically tested by others, and insulated from our deception, bias and error.
4) We call this process ‘science’, but the practice of science is little more than a set of moral rules that instruct us as to how to eliminate deception, bias and error. The scientific method then, is merely a moral discipline: the means by which we struggle to speak the truth, as truthfully as we may possibly accomplish given the frailty of our reason.
5) That giving witness to one’s observations, is testable by reproduction of a set of operational definitions. That operational definitions produce the equivalent of names, just as positional numbering provides quantities with names. Such names are insulated from deception, distraction, loading, framing and overloading. Theories are not. While we cannot demonstrate the absolute parsimony of a theory (that we know of), we can demonstrate that we truthfully conveyed our observations. In other words, we can testify truthfully to an ordered set of facts, even if we cannot testify truthfully to parsimony of a theory.
6) That it is possible to state instead that all outputs of scientific investigation are truthful, if they are truthfully represented – where ‘scientific investigation” refers to the use of the scientific method, regardless of field of inquiry. But that we seek the most parsimonious statement of a theory, and we can never know that we have obtained it, we can only develop consensus that we cannot cause it to fail. This is, as far as I know, the best non-platonic description of truth available. Everything else is a linguistic contrivance for one purpose or another – possibly to obscure ignorance, and possibly to load ideas with moral motivation. Scientists load their contrivance of truth, and mathematicians load their contrivance of numbers, limits, and a dozen other things – most of which obscure linguistic ‘cheats’ to give authority to that which is necessary for the construction of general rules. (ie: the problem of arbitrary precision).
7) That Popper did no investigation into science or the history of science prior to making his argument, and that as yet, we do not have a systematic account of the history of science. However, what history we do have, both distant and recent, is that science operates by criticism upon failure, where failure is demonstrated by via overextension of the theory.
8) The reason for overextension rather than criticism as the operational preference being that it is economically inefficient (expensive) to pursue criticism rather than to extend a theory to its point of failure then criticize it. And as far as we know, this is how science functions in practice, and must work, because it is how all human endeavors must work. Because while a small number of scientists may seek the ‘truth’ (or whatever a Platonist means by it), what scientists try to do is solve problems – i.e. to manufacture recipes for useful cognition.
9) Popper’s advice was merely moral given that the scope of inquiry in all human fields had surpassed that of human scale, where tests are subjectively verifiable. (I think this is an important insight because it occurred in all fields.) Einstein for example, operationalized observations (relative simultaneity for example) over very great distances approaching the speed of light using Lorenz transformations. And as Bridgman demonstrated, the reason Einstein’s work was novel was because prior generations had NOT been operationalizing statements ,and as such, more than a generation and perhaps two were lost to failure of what should have been an obvious solution. (See the problem of length, which I tend to refer to often as the best example.) I addressed this in a previous post, and what popper did was give us good advice, and while he made an argument that appears logical, like most rational arguments, unsupported by data, it is not clear he was correct, and in fact, it appears that he was not. The question is not a rational but empirical one. (Note: I seek to codify this moral insight into law. Thus ending all deception by not only Fictionalism, but all other means.)
10) Popper unlike Misesian Pseudoscience, or Rothbardian Immoral Verbalisms, was engaged in a moral attempt both in politics and in science, and perhaps in science as a vehicle for politics, to prevent the pseudoscientific use of science – particularly by fascist and communists, to use the findings of science as a replacement for divine authority by which to command man. What popper did, particularly with his Platonism, was to remove the ability for the findings of science to be used as justification for the removal of human choice. Popper, Mises, and Hayek were responsible for undermining pseudoscientific authoritarianism. Of the three Popper is perhaps less articulate (possibly to obscure his objective), but certainly not wrong, so to speak. While Mises’ appeal to authoritarianism (which is part and parcel of his Jewish culture) was entirely pseudoscientific, by claiming that economics was deductive rather than empirical, and justifying it under a priorism, instead of as I’ve stated, understanding that he was merely trying to apply operationalism to economic activity, which would merely demonstrate that Keynesian economics was immoral and deterministic, not unscientific.
11) But Popper, Mises, Hayek, Bridgman and Brouwer, did not find a solution to restoring the western aristocratic conditions for public speech. They too were a lost in Platonism a bit. Bridgman and Brouwer did understand that something was wrong, and were very close, but they could not make the moral argument. We have had a century now of attacks by verbal contrivance and we can demonstrate the destruction of our civilization by way of it. So the moral argument is no longer one of undemonstrated results. WE have the results. And we have a generation of men, myself included, trying to repair it.
One must speak truthfully, because no other truth is knowable. Intellectual products that are brought to market must be warrantied just as are all other products that are brought to market, and the warranty that you can provide is operational definitions (recipes, experience), not theories (psychologism, projections). And if you are not willing to stand behind your product then you should not bring it to market. Because you have no right to subject others to harm.
Intellectuals produce ideas (myself included), that is our product. We are paid in measly terms most of the time, for our product, but that is what we do. But it is no different from serving too-hot coffee or selling dangerous ladders, or manufacturing defective gas tanks – intellectuals do plenty of harm in history. Perhaps the most harm of all. Between Abraham, Paul of Tarsus and the Byzantine Emperors, Mohammed and his real author,; Marx, Boaz, and Freud, it is hard to envision any worse catastrophe perpetrated by man.
THEREFORE:
Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution or harm to physical commons, life, body, and private property?
Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to.
Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win?
There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy, bias, error, and deceit.
We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian Justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive.
So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – Anglo, French, German and Jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience).
So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.
INNOVATION IN SCIENCE, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND TRUTH
In the last century intellectuals tried and failed to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. They couldn’t do it.
What I’ve done, because I’ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning that which is existentially possible to construct through a series of operations is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibility, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.
KARL POPPER
Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.
He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.
Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:
1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs. Justificationism (excuses)
2) Critical Rationalism: we can know what is false but not what is true.
3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.
4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test
5) That science, by verisimilitude (markets), is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.
BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.
Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.
Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.
Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. (Rather than the competition between consistency, correspondence, completeness, and coherence.)
Verisimilitude: (Rather than Markets.) Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.
Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)
The Epistemological Cycle …
Problem -> Theory -> Test
… is incomplete.
The complete epistemological cycle is:
Perception(Chaotic) ->
…Opportunity (Free Association) ->
……Hypothesis (way-finding) ->
………Criticism(individual investment) ->
…………Theory (outputs a recipe/opportunity narrative) ->
……………Social Criticism (market investment) ->
………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->
…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->
……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )
This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:
1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)
2 – Question (Problem)
3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! )
………..way-finding (criticism) / Hypothesis.
Way-finding is a form of criticizing an idea.
………..criticism / theory / personal use
………..testing / law / general use
………..recognition / survival / universal use
………..identity / tautology / integration into world view.
The Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (falsification) of our free associations.
IMMANUEL KANT
3) A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.”
There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:
i) A priori vs. A posteriori,
ii) Analytic vs. Synthetic, and
iii) Necessity vs. Contingency
Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.
(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.”
(b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.”
(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.”
(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”
This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori
(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori
(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori
(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori
Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals)
(a) identity (numbers)
(b) logical (sets)
(c) empirical (ratios)
(d) existential (constructible)
Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality
(a) point
(b) line
(c) shape
(d) object
(e) time (change)
(f) relative change
Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)
(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)
(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)
(d) Existential: (operational consistency)
(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time)
(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change)
Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).
The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony:
1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation)
2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation)
3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation)
4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation)
5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation)
6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation)
7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation)
8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation)
Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope.
We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency.
Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension.
The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences.
Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’.
It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk.
This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists.
DEDUCTIBILITY FROM A-PRIORI PROPOSITIONS
Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so. As such there is a vast difference between an a priori rule of thumb, and a …..
What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases).
So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Or even that the effect will appear in the given circumstance. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason.
The innovation that Menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of Hayek was to transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence.
What Hayek and popper and the Classicals and the Keynesians all missed and Brouwer in math, Bridgman in physics, and Mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims.
For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as Mises’, Brouwer’s and Bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false.
The difference between economics and physics is in
(a) volition vs. determinism
(b) reciprocity vs. transformation
(c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs. entropy.
In simplest terms I translated Hoppe’s “Kantian Justificationism” into Anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of Praxeology that is the innovation.
The primary difference is that I show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract. Otherwise demand for authority increases, or retaliation increases, or trust and economic velocity decreases, and competitiveness decreases, with all instances of differences not resolvable under law.
Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition. And this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy but with purely empirical natural law.
In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.
So, while you cannot obtain borderland European liberty or separatist, ghetto, and borderland Jewish ‘liberty’, and if you want a condition of Anglo-Saxon liberty for the individual, it’s only possible if you create sovereignty in fact for the polity.
And the only way to create sovereignty and liberty is using (a) a militia, (b)natural law of reciprocity, (c) the markets that are made necessary by the natural law of reciprocity, (d) including the markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons production, polity production. And in order to do so you must produce a competitive market between the family(church/school), the commons (houses for each class), and judiciary (monarchy, judiciary, military).
In other words, by restoring the pre-revolutionary path, of Christian monarchies, and converting from mere common law, to strictly constructed judge discovered, law. And eliminating the parliament’s ability to create legislation and regulation – limiting them to contracts of the commons. And transforming the treasury into a purely empirical insurer of last resort for whom regulation is merely a matter of actuarial calculation.
GETTING TO THAT DIFFERENCE
(undone)
COMPLETING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Properly understood, the Scientific method, at least as practiced in the physical sciences, if extended to include tests of volition, reciprocity, and full accounting, serves as nothing more than a warranty of due diligence upon our speech about the world.
In other words, the scientific method demands due diligence in the distribution of information just as we demand due diligence in the market for goods and services, and claims about goods and services, by force of involuntary warranty.
THE SCIENTIFIC (UNIVERSAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL) METHOD
“DEFLATION“, DEFLATIONARY (de–conflate)
(undone)
“DIMENSION”
(1) We can make:
(a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or
(b) statements about statements(ideal), or
(c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or
(d) statements about existential cause and effect(change).
(e) statements about volition
“CLOSURE”
(2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (i.e. Gödel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary.
“CRITICAL RATIONALISM”
(3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent.
“CRITICAL PREFERENCE”
(4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations.
“FALSIFICATION”
(0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality.
DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, DECEIT
(5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (i.e. physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges)
Again, those dimensions are:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)
(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)
(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)
(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)
(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)
(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)
(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)
(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)
DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF IDEAS
(6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle:
(a) observation
(b) Free association (F -> observation)
(c) test of reasonability (F -> free association )
(d) Hypothesis
(e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association )
(f) Theory
(g) Publish to the market for application
(h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures )
(i) Law
(j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures)
(k) Habituation into metaphysical assumptionsSPECIAL CASES
7) This epistemological process is universally applicable despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding?
(a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or
(b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or
(c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or
(d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change).
(e) Morality: statements about volition
(f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a Hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”)
EXAMPLES
The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above.
(a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time.
(b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money.
(c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk.
(d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts.
(e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends.
“ECONOMIC LEVERS”
Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy.
-Near Term-
(a) Monetary Policy
(b) Fiscal Policy (Spending)
-Medium Term-
(c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies)
(d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc)
(e) Immigration-Deportation policy / Expand military, WPA etc.
-Long Term-
(f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy)
(g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks)
(h) Strategic (military) Policy
Science: A Warranty of Due Diligence
SCIENCE: The use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, Fictionalism and deceit from our free-associations by the systematic deflation and attempted falsification (survival) from criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits – and coherent across those dimensions.
Science is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully:
— We test our categories using differences to eliminate conflation.
— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency.
— We test our observations with external correspondence.
— We test the existence of our premises with operations.
— We test the rationality and volition of choice through sympathy
— We test the reciprocity and volition of choice through changes in capital
— We test the scope of our theory with falsifications.
Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm.
The central argument regarding truth:
1) That in order to cooperate, humans evolved sympathy for intent – and are marginally indifferent in their judgment of intentions. This allows us to sympathetically test most human incentives if subject to the same stimuli (information). It is also why juries can functions, since this sympathetic testing of intentions is the criteria by which juries render decisions.
2) That however, we cannot sympathize with the first principles of the physical universe – the equivalent of intentions. So while we intuit and can test man’s intentions, we cannot measure and test the universe’s first principles. As such, the best we can do is testify to observations and measurements of those phenomenon until at some point we know those first principles – if that is ever possible.
3) But our observations must also be reduced to stimuli that can be sympathetically tested by others, and insulated from our deception, bias and error.
4) We call this process ‘science’, but the practice of science is little more than a set of moral rules that instruct us as to how to eliminate deception, bias and error. The scientific method then, is merely a moral discipline: the means by which we struggle to speak the truth, as truthfully as we may possibly accomplish given the frailty of our reason.
5) That giving witness to one’s observations, is testable by reproduction of a set of operational definitions. That operational definitions produce the equivalent of names, just as positional numbering provides quantities with names. Such names are insulated from deception, distraction, loading, framing and overloading. Theories are not. While we cannot demonstrate the absolute parsimony of a theory (that we know of), we can demonstrate that we truthfully conveyed our observations. In other words, we can testify truthfully to an ordered set of facts, even if we cannot testify truthfully to parsimony of a theory.
6) That it is possible to state instead that all outputs of scientific investigation are truthful, if they are truthfully represented – where ‘scientific investigation” refers to the use of the scientific method, regardless of field of inquiry. But that we seek the most parsimonious statement of a theory, and we can never know that we have obtained it, we can only develop consensus that we cannot cause it to fail. This is, as far as I know, the best non-platonic description of truth available. Everything else is a linguistic contrivance for one purpose or another – possibly to obscure ignorance, and possibly to load ideas with moral motivation. Scientists load their contrivance of truth, and mathematicians load their contrivance of numbers, limits, and a dozen other things – most of which obscure linguistic ‘cheats’ to give authority to that which is necessary for the construction of general rules. (ie: the problem of arbitrary precision).
7) That Popper did no investigation into science or the history of science prior to making his argument, and that as yet, we do not have a systematic account of the history of science. However, what history we do have, both distant and recent, is that science operates by criticism upon failure, where failure is demonstrated by via overextension of the theory.
8) The reason for overextension rather than criticism as the operational preference being that it is economically inefficient (expensive) to pursue criticism rather than to extend a theory to its point of failure then criticize it. And as far as we know, this is how science functions in practice, and must work, because it is how all human endeavors must work. Because while a small number of scientists may seek the ‘truth’ (or whatever a Platonist means by it), what scientists try to do is solve problems – i.e. to manufacture recipes for useful cognition.
9) Popper’s advice was merely moral given that the scope of inquiry in all human fields had surpassed that of human scale, where tests are subjectively verifiable. (I think this is an important insight because it occurred in all fields.) Einstein for example, operationalized observations (relative simultaneity for example) over very great distances approaching the speed of light using Lorenz transformations. And as Bridgman demonstrated, the reason Einstein’s work was novel was because prior generations had NOT been operationalizing statements ,and as such, more than a generation and perhaps two were lost to failure of what should have been an obvious solution. (See the problem of length, which I tend to refer to often as the best example.) I addressed this in a previous post, and what popper did was give us good advice, and while he made an argument that appears logical, like most rational arguments, unsupported by data, it is not clear he was correct, and in fact, it appears that he was not. The question is not a rational but empirical one. (Note: I seek to codify this moral insight into law. Thus ending all deception by not only Fictionalism, but all other means.)
10) Popper unlike Misesian Pseudoscience, or Rothbardian Immoral Verbalisms, was engaged in a moral attempt both in politics and in science, and perhaps in science as a vehicle for politics, to prevent the pseudoscientific use of science – particularly by fascist and communists, to use the findings of science as a replacement for divine authority by which to command man. What popper did, particularly with his Platonism, was to remove the ability for the findings of science to be used as justification for the removal of human choice. Popper, Mises, and Hayek were responsible for undermining pseudoscientific authoritarianism. Of the three Popper is perhaps less articulate (possibly to obscure his objective), but certainly not wrong, so to speak. While Mises’ appeal to authoritarianism (which is part and parcel of his Jewish culture) was entirely pseudoscientific, by claiming that economics was deductive rather than empirical, and justifying it under a priorism, instead of as I’ve stated, understanding that he was merely trying to apply operationalism to economic activity, which would merely demonstrate that Keynesian economics was immoral and deterministic, not unscientific.
11) But Popper, Mises, Hayek, Bridgman and Brouwer, did not find a solution to restoring the western aristocratic conditions for public speech. They too were a lost in Platonism a bit. Bridgman and Brouwer did understand that something was wrong, and were very close, but they could not make the moral argument. We have had a century now of attacks by verbal contrivance and we can demonstrate the destruction of our civilization by way of it. So the moral argument is no longer one of undemonstrated results. WE have the results. And we have a generation of men, myself included, trying to repair it.
One must speak truthfully, because no other truth is knowable. Intellectual products that are brought to market must be warrantied just as are all other products that are brought to market, and the warranty that you can provide is operational definitions (recipes, experience), not theories (psychologism, projections). And if you are not willing to stand behind your product then you should not bring it to market. Because you have no right to subject others to harm.
Intellectuals produce ideas (myself included), that is our product. We are paid in measly terms most of the time, for our product, but that is what we do. But it is no different from serving too-hot coffee or selling dangerous ladders, or manufacturing defective gas tanks – intellectuals do plenty of harm in history. Perhaps the most harm of all. Between Abraham, Paul of Tarsus and the Byzantine Emperors, Mohammed and his real author,; Marx, Boaz, and Freud, it is hard to envision any worse catastrophe perpetrated by man.
THEREFORE:
Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution or harm to physical commons, life, body, and private property?
Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to.
Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win?
There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy, bias, error, and deceit.
We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian Justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive.
So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – Anglo, French, German and Jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience).
So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.
INNOVATION IN SCIENCE, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND TRUTH
In the last century intellectuals tried and failed to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. They couldn’t do it.
What I’ve done, because I’ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning that which is existentially possible to construct through a series of operations is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibility, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.
KARL POPPER
Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.
He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.
Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:
1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs. Justificationism (excuses)
2) Critical Rationalism: we can know what is false but not what is true.
3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.
4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test
5) That science, by verisimilitude (markets), is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.
BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.
Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.
Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.
Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. (Rather than the competition between consistency, correspondence, completeness, and coherence.)
Verisimilitude: (Rather than Markets.) Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.
Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)
The Epistemological Cycle …
Problem -> Theory -> Test
… is incomplete.
The complete epistemological cycle is:
Perception(Chaotic) ->
…Opportunity (Free Association) ->
……Hypothesis (way-finding) ->
………Criticism(individual investment) ->
…………Theory (outputs a recipe/opportunity narrative) ->
……………Social Criticism (market investment) ->
………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->
…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->
……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )
This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:
1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)
2 – Question (Problem)
3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! )
………..way-finding (criticism) / Hypothesis.
Way-finding is a form of criticizing an idea.
………..criticism / theory / personal use
………..testing / law / general use
………..recognition / survival / universal use
………..identity / tautology / integration into world view.
The Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (falsification) of our free associations.
IMMANUEL KANT
3) A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.”
There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:
i) A priori vs. A posteriori,
ii) Analytic vs. Synthetic, and
iii) Necessity vs. Contingency
Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.
(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.”
(b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.”
(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.”
(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”
This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori
(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori
(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori
(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori
Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals)
(a) identity (numbers)
(b) logical (sets)
(c) empirical (ratios)
(d) existential (constructible)
Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality
(a) point
(b) line
(c) shape
(d) object
(e) time (change)
(f) relative change
Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)
(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)
(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)
(d) Existential: (operational consistency)
(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time)
(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change)
Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).
The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony:
1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation)
2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation)
3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation)
4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation)
5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation)
6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation)
7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation)
8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation)
Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope.
We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency.
Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension.
The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences.
Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’.
It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk.
This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists.
DEDUCTIBILITY FROM A-PRIORI PROPOSITIONS
Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so. As such there is a vast difference between an a priori rule of thumb, and a …..
What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases).
So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Or even that the effect will appear in the given circumstance. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason.
The innovation that Menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of Hayek was to transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence.
What Hayek and popper and the Classicals and the Keynesians all missed and Brouwer in math, Bridgman in physics, and Mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims.
For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as Mises’, Brouwer’s and Bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false.
The difference between economics and physics is in
(a) volition vs. determinism
(b) reciprocity vs. transformation
(c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs. entropy.
In simplest terms I translated Hoppe’s “Kantian Justificationism” into Anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of Praxeology that is the innovation.
The primary difference is that I show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract. Otherwise demand for authority increases, or retaliation increases, or trust and economic velocity decreases, and competitiveness decreases, with all instances of differences not resolvable under law.
Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition. And this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy but with purely empirical natural law.
In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.
So, while you cannot obtain borderland European liberty or separatist, ghetto, and borderland Jewish ‘liberty’, and if you want a condition of Anglo-Saxon liberty for the individual, it’s only possible if you create sovereignty in fact for the polity.
And the only way to create sovereignty and liberty is using (a) a militia, (b)natural law of reciprocity, (c) the markets that are made necessary by the natural law of reciprocity, (d) including the markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons production, polity production. And in order to do so you must produce a competitive market between the family(church/school), the commons (houses for each class), and judiciary (monarchy, judiciary, military).
In other words, by restoring the pre-revolutionary path, of Christian monarchies, and converting from mere common law, to strictly constructed judge discovered, law. And eliminating the parliament’s ability to create legislation and regulation – limiting them to contracts of the commons. And transforming the treasury into a purely empirical insurer of last resort for whom regulation is merely a matter of actuarial calculation.
GETTING TO THAT DIFFERENCE
(undone)
COMPLETING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Properly understood, the Scientific method, at least as practiced in the physical sciences, if extended to include tests of volition, reciprocity, and full accounting, serves as nothing more than a warranty of due diligence upon our speech about the world.
In other words, the scientific method demands due diligence in the distribution of information just as we demand due diligence in the market for goods and services, and claims about goods and services, by force of involuntary warranty.
THE SCIENTIFIC (UNIVERSAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL) METHOD
“DEFLATION“, DEFLATIONARY (de–conflate)
(undone)
“DIMENSION”
(1) We can make:
(a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or
(b) statements about statements(ideal), or
(c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or
(d) statements about existential cause and effect(change).
(e) statements about volition
“CLOSURE”
(2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (i.e. Gödel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary.
“CRITICAL RATIONALISM”
(3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent.
“CRITICAL PREFERENCE”
(4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations.
“FALSIFICATION”
(0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality.
DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, DECEIT
(5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (i.e. physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges)
Again, those dimensions are:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)
(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)
(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)
(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)
(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)
(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)
(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)
(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)
DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF IDEAS
(6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle:
(a) observation
(b) Free association (F -> observation)
(c) test of reasonability (F -> free association )
(d) Hypothesis
(e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association )
(f) Theory
(g) Publish to the market for application
(h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures )
(i) Law
(j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures)
(k) Habituation into metaphysical assumptionsSPECIAL CASES
7) This epistemological process is universally applicable despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding?
(a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or
(b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or
(c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or
(d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change).
(e) Morality: statements about volition
(f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a Hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”)
EXAMPLES
The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above.
(a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time.
(b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money.
(c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk.
(d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts.
(e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends.
“ECONOMIC LEVERS”
Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy.
-Near Term-
(a) Monetary Policy
(b) Fiscal Policy (Spending)
-Medium Term-
(c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies)
(d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc)
(e) Immigration-Deportation policy / Expand military, WPA etc.
-Long Term-
(f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy)
(g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks)
(h) Strategic (military) Policy
3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) Institution: Religion (norms)
We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.
The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.
Natural law (which Sovereignty translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).
For all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the Greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just
So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.
We first had an invasion of Babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.
1 – Then we had an invasion of Christianity (Mysticism: Judaism, Christianity, Islamism).
2 – Then we had the invasion of Marxism (Pseudoscience: Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School aesthetics.
3 – Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)
These constitute three waves of increasingly articulate lies, that undermine high trust societies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.
Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.
So, There are three ways to coerce people: force(law/military), payment(trade), and shaming(gossip/morals)
These techniques correspond to conservative(saving), libertarian(trade), and progressive(shaming).
And these correspond to the reproductive roles of father(conservative), the brother(libertarian), and the mother and sister(progressive)
And that’s because it’s the reproductive strategy of the males, the young, and the females.
We differ in perception and function, but are compatible, and through exchanges(negotiations and trades) we ‘discover‘ the ‘price’ of persistence (survival). And we rebel at the limits, when exchanges are no longer possible or desirable..
It’s very simple. We all just negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies. It’s that simple. All our talk is nonsense.
THREE CLASSES OF SPECIALIZATION
(continuous adaptation to demands)
METHODS OF ARGUMENT
The next ten arguments you engage in, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.
1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.
2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.
3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)
4) Reasonable (informal)
5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.
10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.
6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”
7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.
8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.
9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).
METHODS OF FALSEHOOD AND DECEIT
1) Ignorance and Error
2) Bias and Wishful Thinking
3) Loading and Framing
Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.)
Framing = a form of informational cherry-picking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.
Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects)
4) Suggestion, Obscurantism, Overloading
5) Fictionalism and Deceit
Pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises).
DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM
1 – Conflation (Substitution, Ambiguity, Signaling)
Conflation consists in the practice of combining two or more distinct concepts in order to perform on or more of the following:
Compensate for one’s lack of knowledge or skill (ambiguity).
Using terms that convey status, experience, or education (signaling).
Attribute greater weight to a proposition than is warranted (conflation).
Misrepresent one thing as another (substitution).
Examples:
A common conflation we all make is to conflate Like with Good, and Good with True.
|Decidability| Undecidable > Possible > Useful > Valuable(Like) > Preferable (Personally Preferable) > Good(Reciprocally Preferable) > True (decidable) > Analytically True (internally consistent) > Tautologically True (identical)
|Correspondent|
Another example:
The common conflation of Reasonable, Rational, and Logical.
|Decisions| (Un)intelligible > (In)Sensible(Understandable) > (Un)Reasonable > (Ir)Rational > (Il)Logical > (In)Calculable > (Un)Computable > (Un)Deniable
In ordinary language (prose), we conflate reasonable, rational and logical to signal our degree of dispassion, degree of criticism, to attribute greater weight to our claims than exists, or to demonstrate status – rather than stating the method we’re using, and adhere to its limitations.
However, Reasonable (loose), Rational (limited), and Logical (strict) refer to increasing constraints on the strictness of our reasoning,
Loose: The Reasonable requires only ordinary informal reason. Meaning that we must only be able to sympathetically tests the sequence of thoughts of ourselves or others for possibility or believability. In courts we test reasonableness every day, and always have.
Example:
“That’s reasonable” translates to “I can understand how you, or one would, come to that conclusion”.Limited: The Rational relies on Rationalism, meaning that which is limited to apprehension and judgment by our reason. However, in practice, Rationalism means ‘justification’ or ‘Justificationism’. Justificationism evolved from ordinary human moral and ethical justification (explanation, or excuse), scriptural Interpretation in the middle east, and legal interpretation in the west, and later textual interpretation in the west and far east.
In criminal, ethical, moral, explanatory, and communication contexts, to we provide a set of propositions that lead one to a conclusion like directions lead us to a location on a map. However, all non-trivial, real world propositions (assumptions) are forever contingent. Meaning that no amount of justification (reasons or evidence) provides a proof (truth), only an explanation of one’s understanding (theory). Rationalism(Justification) differs from Science (falsification) in that in science, justifications only provide us with suggestions of how we might falsify a proposition (theory) to see if it survives (is true). In this sense, a justification is an excuse for stating a testimony (truth claim).
We can justify (prove) very little outside of mathematics, or that which is reducible to mathematical relations. But we can falsify (demonstrate a falsehood) using the first two rules. We will discuss this in depth later on.
Justification (Justificationism) is still (unfortunately) taught in philosophy classes in the west if not everywhere.
Strict: The Logical relies upon the three classic laws of thought:
(1) The law of identity – that the properties of a referent are unique enough that it cannot be conflated with something else. This is best thought of that a referrer and a referent are uniquely correspondent.
(2) The law of non-contradiction stats that for any sentence or proposition, it and its negation cannot both be true. In other words, the law states that there are no true contradictions.
(3) The law of excluded middle states that for any sentence (or proposition), that sentence is either true or false. This is equivalent to saying that truth and falsity are the only truth values for a sentence, and that no well-formed sentences are simultaneously not true and not false. This is somewhat problematic because there is a difference between false and undecidable.
These three criteria leave us only two venues of decidability: (a)”mutually exclusive” and (b) “jointly exhaustive”, and provide no choice of the unknown or contingent.
2 – Suggestion:
Suggestion consists in the practice of stating:
a complete, coherent, consistent, correspondent, statement or narrative
a question, example, or puzzle that is by its nature incomplete
an incomplete statement or narrative
an analogous statement or narrative
an incoherent statement or narrative
an erroneous statement or narrative
Such that the observer (audience) must infer, or supply (“fill in”), willingly or not, the information that is necessary for sensibility (coherence) in order to understand the actor (speaker).
Unfortunately, the process of serialized speech (sequences of sounds, words, phrases, sentences) consists of a stream of suggestions by the actor (speaker), and “filling-in” (tentative completion) by the observer (audience).
The question is only whether the contract for meaning produced by the actor (speaker) is reciprocal (equally understood) by the observer (audience) or not.
The actor can pay the cost of due diligence, or the observer can pay the cost of due diligence, assuming either has the ability to do so. Unfortunately, knowledge is always and forever asymmetrical and therefore due diligence against fraudulent contract terms (contract for meaning) leaves the participant with the greatest knowledge asymmetrically responsible for the warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
Example:
A common libertarian artifice is “The Non-Aggression Principle”, which consists of an incomplete statement (“an incomplete statement or narrative” above). For one to aggress, one must aggress against something. By not stating what people may not aggress against, this deception forces the observer to rely upon intuition to complete his understanding. For this reason, while people vastly agree upon the general meaning of aggression, they disagree upon what one may or may not aggress against. This provides nearly everyone who hears it with the incentive to agree with the proposition yet continuously disagree with what may or may not be aggressed against.
(You will see this pattern of deception throughout libertarianism, Marxism, and Neo Conservatism.)
In general, beware ‘principles’ as nothing more than arbitrary statements of appeal to tradition or authority by those who lack the knowledge to make the judgments they claim to.
3 – Omniscience
An unfortunate consequence of demand for efficient speech, even in a language as precise as English, is our use of the Copula (the verb to-be) to conflate both the forms of existence, and observer’s point of view, allowing us to testify on behalf of others, and to escape responsibility for our testimony.
Using Operational grammar thereby deflating points of view (who is testifying).
(b) Eliminating The Copula (the Verb To-Be) to eliminate pretense of authority, and escape liability for testimony (speech).
Example:
Take the simple sentence “The cat is black”. (Much like “Chocolate is good” in the example above.) This is ‘god mode’ (omniscient) speech. Rather than “I promise I see a cat. The cats fur appears black. If you observe this cat, it’s fur will appear black to you as well.”
There are a host of reasons we use the copula for the sake of brevity.
computational efficiency (it’s costly in English grammar to speak in the active voice)
verbal efficiency and convenience
lack of understanding
circumvention of responsibility (liability) for our speech (testimony)
This single grammatical device is the source of the vast majority of sophisms in the English language. For example, there is a great difference between “Everything in this box is a lie”, and “I promise I have written only lies in this box”. In philosophy this is considered a paradox, when it is simply that the actor (speaker, composer) is engaged in an intentional conflation of promising and lying – it’s just a case of bad grammar. In other words, phrases and sentences don’t ‘mean something platonic or ideal’ the author intends a meaning and succeeds or fails and producing it grammatically such that it’s consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete – and possible, rational, and reciprocal if claimed so. In other words, the author claims a text has meaning rather than an actor composes text meaningfully or not, and ethically or not.
Another Example:
Compare the two sentences “I, Albert, saw Brock throw the rock toward Carl, and it hit Carl, and Carl flinched when it hit him.” versus “Brock was angry and threw a rock at Carl, and it hurt him, and made him angry.” I cannot testify to Brock’s or Carl’s moods or intentions, only to the operation that Brock threw a rock and the rock hit Carl.
4 – Extrapolation
Extrapolation means assuming whatever you observe continues to share properties with what you cannot observe.
For example:
“The house is green.” Versus “I see a house. I can see two sides. The two sides I can see appear green, I cannot see other than those two sides of the house.”
5 – Inflation (White Lie)
Inflation consists of three techniques, Loading, Framing, and Overloading
|Inflation| Loading > Framing > Obscuring > Overloading
Loading (Valuing)
Loading consists of the addition of subjective value (personal, normative, cultural, religious, political, methodological, and disciplinary), rather than the removal (deflation) of it, by ‘display, word, or deed”.
Framing (Leading)
Framing refers to a form of suggestion (inference) wherein the presentation of information, or telling of a story, in a way that influences the observer – by emphasizing negative and positive consequences. (From the legal “I’ve been framed!”.)
For example:
Whenever we are presented with information we attempt to construct a network of relations that we use to create a model understanding and evaluation no matter how little or much information we are given. At any given time on any given subject we might be able to present the information from different points of view – thereby causing the observer (audience) to empathize with that point of view. Or to cause the observer (audience) to hypothesize cause, or intention. Or to recall and associate the story with a myth, or norm, or saying.
Obscuring, Obscurantism (Hiding)
Obscuring refers to the use of characterized by deliberate vagueness or obliqueness in argument intended to prevent understanding, to hinder the process of understanding, or to hinder full understanding.
For example:
Philosophers engage in obscurantism when describing the abstract concepts of their disciplines.
Public intellectuals write esoterically to avert persecution by the political or religious authorities, or obscurely, in order to hide his or her vacuousness.
Populists engage in obscurantism denote and describe the denial of the empirical truth of scientific theory, because of the disagreeable moral consequences that might arise from acceptance of fact.
Many of us engage in ‘hand waving’ in order to pretend knowledge, obscure our ignorance, avoid stating the unpleasant, or to avoid blame.
Overloading (Overwhelming)
Overloading refers to an actor supplying enough information that the observer can only intuit rather than reason through the material.
The most effective means of overloading is sophism: an apparently sophisticated argument that is correct in form but false in consequence.
Pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and religion all rely upon compensating for the otherwise unbelievable with an abundance of information that overloads the observer’s ability to reason. Particularly if the observer has incentive to believe in the falsehood in the first place.
Advertising, Propaganda, Pseudoscientific Papers books and articles, Pilpul (misleading justification) and Critique (misleading criticism), philosophical rationalism(justification), and statistics (innumeracy) are the most common methods of overloading.
6 –Fictionalisms
|Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud
A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading.
Given our the methods of perception:
|Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason)
And the methods of inflating and conflating them:
|Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal)
We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:
Ideal (intellectual):
1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….
3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)
Magical (Technical):
4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.
5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.
6) Pseudosciences:
Supernormal (Experiential):
7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.
9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it.
We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories.
Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:
1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
Conversation(bonding or entertainment),
Discourse (discovery),
Argument(persuasion), and
Testimony(reporting),
… Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:
Description vs. Fiction,
Honesty vs. Deceit,
Truth or Falsehood,
… of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or
2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or
3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains.
4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.
5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths.
5) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit.7 – Fraud and Deceit (black lie)Fraud is any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unearned gain, avoidance of loss or demand for restitution, or for unwarranted harm to others; while Deceit is an act or practice intended to deceive or trick whether for gain or not.
Distinguishing between Fraud and Deceit requires we expand our analysis beyond terms and into incentives. And that evaluation, will require Operational Language, Fully Expanded Sentences, and an Account of Changes in State – which we will cover later in the chapters on Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law.
However, we can identify malincentives, which consist of either Discounts or Premiums.
Discount
Premium
|Malincentives| Signaling > Biasing > Deceiving > Defrauding
DiscountingVirtue SignalingSignalingBiasing Deceiving Defrauding8 – Evil (deep black lie)
(…)
THE TESTIMONY WE CALL “TRUTH”
The Decidability of Testimony
—“We evolved to negotiate pragmatically not testify truthfully. The reason we need Truth is because it’s counter-intuitive – it provides decidability independent of opinion or value – and so it’s often undesirable.” —
Deflating the word “True”.
|Testimony| > Dishonesty(bias, deceit) > Error (ignorance, error) >
Meaningful (intuitionistic) > Honesty(rational) >
Truthfulness(scientific) > Ideal Truth (imaginary) >
Analytic Truth (logical) > Tautological Truth (linguistic).
The etymology of the word “True” is:
truth (n.)
Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith,” from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”, “oak” “Strong as an oak”.
true (adj.)
Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) “faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.,” from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith” (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws “faithful, trusty”), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”
Sense of “consistent with fact” first recorded c. 1200; that of “real, genuine, not counterfeit” is from late 14c.; that of “conformable to a certain standard” (as true north) is from c. 1550. Of artifacts, “accurately fitted or shaped” it is recorded from late 15c. True-love (n.) is Old English treowlufu. True-born (adj.) first attested 1590s. True-false (adj.) as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. To come true (of dreams, etc.) is from 1819.
true (v.)
Sense of correspondence. “make true in position, form, or adjustment,” 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense “agreeing with a certain standard.” Related: Trued; truing.
(source: from the online etymology dictionary)
An Action (Verb): We Lack a Primary Verb for “Speaking the Truth”
While we have admittedly fuzzy definitions for true and truth, one of the frailties of English and most other IE languages is that they do not have a primary verb for “speak the truth,” as a contrast to lie and lying (v.). As we will observe repeatedly over the course of this book, the lack of a primary verb for Speaking the Truth is but one of many apparent confusions that are cause us so many problems of grammar and vocabulary.
In order to solve the problem of the ‘missing term’ we will use the terms “truthful”, “truthfulness”. For example: ‘He lies’, vs. ‘He speaks truthfully’. I’m not adventurous enough with terminology to suggest we use truths and truth as in ‘He truths’, and ‘That’s a truth’, even if it’s not uncommon for us to use “True” and less frequently “Truth” as statements of agreement.
A Term of Promise: All Statements are Promissory, With Varying Degrees of Contingency
If I say ‘it’s raining’, I am saying “I promise it is raining”. I might say “I think/believe it is raining” which expresses contingency. I might also say “isn’t it raining?” Or “maybe it is raining” to suggest a possibility rather than state a contingency or a promise. Yet we seek to avoid that accountability.
The Term Testimony Instead of Promise: ‘Testimonial Truth’
In philosophical discourse the terms ‘promissory’ or ‘performative’ truth are used for similar purposes. But because we are working in the context of law not norm and because we want to distinguish our work from prior authors, we will use the term “Testimony” and “Testimonial Truth”.
Only the Conscious (Humans) can Testify or Promise
Only those capable of speech (testimony), possessing sentience (feeling) consciousness (reason) and agency (cognitive independence from intuitionistic interference) are cable of making such promises. And not all individuals are possessed of sufficient agency (knowledge, skill, ability) to make such promises – and unfortunately we are not ourselves aware of our own limits. For this reason honestly is insufficient for truth claims. Instead we must perform due diligence against our limitations in order to make truth claims. And to guard against deception we must demand warranty (Or as Taleb argues, ‘skin in the game’.) Not simply because people are deceptive, but because they often lack the agency to speak truthfully having performed due diligence against their frailties.
The Degree of Promise in Testimony
So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of three axes;
the demand for decidability given the context of the question we decide
the decidability of the testimony necessary to fulfill that demand
the degree of warranty of due diligence that such testimony is sufficient for decidability, and demand for infallibility
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not.
A Term of Agreement
In English grammar we refer to yes and no as a subtype of word we call ‘Agreement’, as in |Word| Noun > Verb > Relation > Agreement. We also use ‘true’ and ‘false’ as methods of ‘agreement’, but agreement on the correspondence of testimony (speech) with reality (existence). So when we say ‘That is true’, we mean ‘I agree with your testimony’. Or less supportively ‘I consent to your testimony’. Or “I promise you will agree with my testimony”, or ‘I cannot disagree with your testimony’. In this sense yes and no, true and false, good and bad are statements of agreement.
|Agreement| Agree, True, Good < Undecidable > Disagree, False, Bad
A Point of View
We habitually conflate (a) the words uttered by the speaker, with (b) the audience’s judgment of the correspondence of those words with reality, (c) the incentives of the speaker that bias his speech with (d) the sufficiency of decidability for the speaker, (e) the sufficiency of decidability of the audience who may or may not possess the skill, and (f) sufficiency of decidability for the judge who may or must possess such a skill to do so. And in doing so we conflate point of view (speaker, audience, judge), even though those points of view possess different information and different incentives, and different objectives.
The audience and the judge must ask, what demand for sufficient decidability is required to answer this question? What degree of due diligence is necessary to claim an answer is honest, truthful, or true – and is it warrantable? And is that degree of honesty, truthfulness or truth sufficient to provide the decidability demanded by the question? In other words, is the testimony decidable true, and is the question decidable given that degree of truth? If not then what is the scale of possible consequence (harm), and what is the possibility of restitution (correction of the error)?
|Point of View| Speaker (Producer)(Hypothesis) < >
Audience (Market)(Theory) > Judge (Court)(Finding of Law)
So a speaker (voice), author (text), or craftsman (symbols or illustrations), produces a product (hypothesis), that is tested by an audience (market), and negotiated (recursively), and either agreed with (purchased), or disagreed with (boycotted – exited), or submitted to a court (fraud).
The Act of Testimony: Copying, Describing, and Reconstructing
Speaking Truthfully requires accurately copying (reporting on) existential reality and then representing that copy in thoughts, words, displays, and actions or other symbols, where the audience’s use of those thoughts, words, and symbols reconstructs the same perception of reality as the speaker.
Challenges of Our Language
Idealism: The Conflation of Speech (exchange) vs. Text (interpretation) Agreement vs Ideal (normative)( … )The Correspondence Definition of Truth
The most common and reductive definition of truth is ‘correspondence’ – meaning that one’s description corresponds to whatever one refers to by it. Which is deceptively simple until we decompose it.
The name Socrates normatively corresponds to a (long dead) skeptical philosopher.
The meaning of correspondence: ie: numbers.
The word “red” normatively invokes the sufficiently infallible expectation to observe a color in another.
(the definition of correspondent truth)
The properties, or constant relations, of two words, phrases, sentences, and stories are identical.
The properties of the speech, consisting of analogies to experience, produce in the audience the experience of recalling the same perceptions, objects, relations, and conclusions (s) that the speaker recalls and reports upon.
These definitions differ from “correspondence with reality” to correspondence with another’s perceptions of reality either directly (sensation), or by instrument, or by imitation of action, or by imitation of imagination and reason.
consistent, correspondent, and coherent (with what?)
Textualism: Deflationary Definition of Correspondence( … )
For example:
1) “Snow is white” is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact that snow is white.
Is then Deflated to:
2) “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white.
Is then Operationalized to:
3) I promise (or recommend, or suggest the possibility) that my statement “Snow is white” is true, and therefore correspondent with reality, if and only if any randomly selected observer will testify that, as a general rule of arbitrary precision, the color of common snow appears white, and will appear white to other observers, unless otherwise tainted by some other coloring.
Is simplified to Testimony:
4) “I promise that you will observe as I have observed that snow appears white.”
|Commitment| Promise < Recommend the Likelihood
< Suggest the Possibility
And “Snow is White” serves as a convenient Ordinary Language (colloquial) reduction that reduces the computational cost, time, and effort of conveying the same information.
As we will see, these reductions are the origins of most sophistry in argument, and philosophy.
The Problem of Imperfect Knowledge and Vocabulary
Our knowledge of other than the trivial is always incomplete. Language consists of general terms (names of categories that describe distributions of properties), and as such Man cannot know the Ideal Truth even if he speaks it. But he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. So we can separate the knowable(testimony) from the unknowable (truth)
The Problem of The Copula
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “I don’t know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance.
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of maintaining state while searching for testifiable phrases.
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand.
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
The Problem of Blame Avoidance in Prose
( … )
The Problem of Costly Construction.
( … )
The Testimonial Definition of Correspondence.
“Agreement”: with text …. Sufficient fulfillment of demand for infallibility…
“Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, fictionalism, and deceit.”
“Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.”
For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.
(Diagram here) demand, promise, agreement, recursively
The Certainty of Falsehood and the Contingency of Truthfulness
Truth: Decidability of the correspondence ( consistency, coherence, completeness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony.
True: Testimony is decidedly correspondent (consistent, coherent, compete, rational and reciprocal) with the referent.
False: Testimony that is decidedly over truth over undecidable over unknown.
Falsehood: Decidability of the non-correspondence ( inconsistency, incoherence, and-or incompleteness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony.
We Can Only Know Statements Are Not False
( … )
Truth Claims: Justification (Support, Ideal) vs. Truthful Claims: Criticism (Survival, Real)
1) Obverse: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation.
2) Reverse: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe.
The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral, cooperative, and legal (dispute resolution), and therefore justificationary reasoning.
Defense Against Infallibility
The Degree of Warranty in Testimony (Due Diligence, and Insurance)Restitution as the limit of warranty in Testimony
(The range of consequences is not arbitrary – determined by choice, but by liability for consequences as determined by the market (harm).)
The Law Alone Provides Decidability Across Full Accounting (real), Testimony, Warranty, and Restitution.
Differences in scope between Science, Economics, Law, Literature
DEMAND FOR MEANING
The problem of meaning (scope of associations) vs truth (limit of mal-associations)
DEMAND FOR TRUTH
The Demand for Infallibility of One’s Testimony
( … ) Explain the upcoming section listing the dimensions of testimony needed, and the due diligence and warranty given the population and outcomes.
PRODUCING SUFFICIENTLY DECIDABLE AND INFALLIBLE TESTIMONY
We possess at least these faculties: Our physical perceptions (perceptions), our intuitionistic and emotional faculties (intuitions), and our intellectual faculties (reason), action (movement) and speech (communication).
Using these faculties, we have produced instrumental means (instrumentation) by which to improve upon ourperception, intuition and reason.1) Logical (Intellectual)(Comparisons(words))(Results)
1.1 The Differential (Identity and therefore Category)
1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.
1.2 The Logical (internally consistent across categories)
1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).
When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice)
1.3 The Logical Fallacy of Closure.
( …. )
2) Empirical (Perceivable)(Physical)(Actions)(Consequences)
2.1 The Empirical (Externally Correspondent) – what we call empirical
2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.
When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud.
2.2 The Operationally Possible (Existentially Possible) – what we call operationally possible.
2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.
When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific)
3) Rational (imaginable) (Intuition, Incentives)(choices)(Returns)
3.1 The Rational (Rational Choice) – what we call subjectively testable.
When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes.
Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.
Decidability in Choice
1 – Time is limited and a scarcity
2 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.
3 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.
…Emotions are a change in state…
cognitive biases are to encourage acquisition despite evidence.
4 – Man Acquires the Physical, Intuitionistic-Emotional, Intellectual, Reproductive, and Social as either gains (increases) or discounts (savings).
Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:
1 – Survival: Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation
2 – Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
3 – Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)
4 – Signals (Reputation, Status, Self Image)
5 – Several Interests: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.
6 – Shareholder Interests: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset),
7 – Commons Interests: Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
8 – Informal (Normative) Interests: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
9 – Formal Institutional Interests: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion),Government, Laws.
10 – Man must inventoryhis acquisitions (Possessions, Interests) against the kaleidic unpredictability of the future and the vicissitudes of nature.
11 – Man must defend those interests that he has acquired and inventoried
12 – Man engages in parasitism by:
1 – harm, violence, murder
2 – theft,
3 – extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
4 – fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
5 – free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
6 – conspiracy, rent seeking, corruption
7 – conversion, immigration,
8 – conquest, war and genocide.
Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy
13 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is in a division of labor is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity man can engage in.)
14 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
1 – Productive (increases property)
2 – Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
3 – Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).
14 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity) Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)
16 – Man organizes to increase cooperation, and to increase cooperation on the suppression of parasitism.
Man is a Rational (amoral) not moral or immoral actor
Incentives to acquire are marginally indifferent
(Network of decidability , Hierarchy of decidability, Constant rotation to pursuit of opportunity in time.)
Empathize with feelings, sympathize with reason
Malincentives in Choice3.2 The Reciprocal and Ethical (Reciprocally Rational Choice) – what we call ‘ethical.
(incentives are a substitute for emotions)
(emotions are a description of changes in state)
(describe subjective testability of incentives)
3.3 The Reciprocal and MoralDecidability in Cooperation ( … )
Harm : Theft (imposition of costs) is decidable. Moral intuitions are not.
(…)
Decidability in the CriminalDecidability in the EthicalDecidability in The Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.
Decidability in the AmoralBut Not the Emotional (Values)
Note that while we can experience emotions, we cannot testify to them, not just because they are unobservable (testable), but because the evidence is quite clear that our reported experiences and preferences have little to do with our demonstrated behaviors and preferences.
Cultural Differences in the Attribution of Emotions to Costs
( … ) Negative consequences, of doing so.
4) The Contractual (Limited, Complete, Parsimonious, and Coherent)
The contractual provide warranty that one or more transactions for meaning result in a batch of transactions that is complete (coherent, and complete)
1 – The Complete (Limits, Scope) – what we call ‘fully accounted’
(no or few unlimited general rules of arbitrary precision)
The Problem of Full Accounting vs. Cherry Picking and Selection Bias. (that we address all dimensions) (this is what separates the real from the idea)
2 – The Coherent (consistent across the logical, empirical, rational, and complete) this is where parsimony: coherent with actions, reality, matters and why operational language provides a test of coherence.
3 – The Parsimonious. (parsimony)
( discuss parsimony in the dimensions, … address determinism in the universe and cheapest transformation…. And compare with human incentives )
DEFINITION: PARSIMONY
“Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man”
EXPANSION
– Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions;
– And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness;
Parsimony must refer to:
“Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
the lowest cost (least information), description of a chain of causation
<
p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- bounded rational self-interest:
– in the seizure of opportunity,
– from the field of identified opportunities,
– given the opportunity cost of the opportunity,
– determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk,
– to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration,
– eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities.
<
p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- and
– reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction.
(- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.)
The difference between:
– Testimony (due diligence by self),
– Coherence(consistency by audience),
– Parsimony(competition by market),
… is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to,
– the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving)
I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.
When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical and moral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences, and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.
Hierarchy of Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality
So, given our four faculties, we have evolved two tests of each, giving us ten dimensions of reality that we can test. Those Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality are:
10 – Parsimony
We will use this set of dimensions of actionable and testifiable reality throughout the rest of this book.
SUMMARY
So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of four axis;
the demand for decidability given the context of the question we decide
the decidability of the testimony necessary to fulfill that demand
the degree of due diligence that such testimony demands
the degree of warranty that restitution under fallibility demands
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable, subject to due diligence, and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. But of due diligence (proof or excuse) or warranty (skin in the game) it is warranty that provides greater insurance.
MALINCENTIVES IN TESTIMONY
FALSEHOODS
Ignorance
Error
Bias, Wishful thinking
FRAUDS
Loading, Framing, Suggestion,
Obscurantism, Overloading,
Fictionalism, Deceit
CRIMES
Murder, Harm, Violence
Theft
Fraud, Fraud by Omission
RESTITUTION
Restitution Upon Failure
Warranty cannot be given for more restitution than is possible
Law Encompasses All Dimensions of Reality
Law requires all dimensions of reality. Truth is determined by law (testimony), all else is a subset of legal testimony, given the subset of reality we are testifying to.
( … list disciplines and how they address subsets of reality … )
|Disciplines| Law < Cognitive Sciences
< Economic and Social Sciences
< Physical Sciences and Engineering
< Mathematics
< Logics
DUE DILIGENCE IN TESTIMONY
Warranty: One’s Due Diligence Against Demand for Infallibility.
If you claim you speak truthfully, you can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retaliation and demand for restitution or retribution. That is all you can claim.
But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true, we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability.
if you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence.
We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – including saving of effort, the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans.
What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation”
So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak.
So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience.
You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement, so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible.
Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean.
Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness.
So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence.
This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence.
So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for.
TRUTH ISN’T COMPLICATED
Truth is Not a Complicated Subject (Really)
If we research the different definitions of (theories of) truth we will find that they fall into (a) consistent, (b) correspondent, (c) constructible (operational), (d) coherent, and (e) contractual (consensual, normative), and (f) the whether the speaker offers a promise, testimony, and warranty or not. Unfortunately (g) Full Accounting, consisting of limits, completeness and parsimony are rarely discussed as a formal requirement even if all such definitions. This has turned out to be a significant problem in all disciplines because it allows fuzzy definitions and cherry picking, and willful ignorance of consequences.
And so the mistaken proposition that there are different theories of truth is simply a failure to articulate each theory of truth as simply those subsets of dimensions of reality that we are testing when we seek to produce a truth claim.
In other words: any Truth proposition creates demand for Testimony, Due Diligence and Warranty in those dimensions that the proposition depends upon. There exist only so many dimensions to test, and there are no (and likely will never be) other dimensions – a subject we will address later under The Grammars.
For example:
In mathematics we require only 1 and 2 – although ostensibly, they should be open to 4, either by direct construction or by deduction from a construction (i.e. a proof of construction or deduction from construction).
Logic is a term we will explore in depth later, but in the sense we are discussing the dependence of two or more propositions on the same constant relations, we require 1,2, at least, and as many others that are required by the propositions.
In the physical sciences, correspondence requires 1,2,3,4, and 7.
Economics should require 1 through 8, even though macro economics is questionably pseudoscientific because it rarely if ever includes 5,6,7. In fact, macro economics is the most notorious for cherry picking of all fields, since the major schools simply arbitrarily choose measures, rather than accounting for the full scope of measures (changes in all forms of capital).
In Juridical Dispute, we make use of 1 – 8 out of necessity, since we are discussing human actions in reality.
In social science and psychology, we find none of the dimensions made use of, for the simple reason that social scientists do not demand due diligence or warranty of those they survey, and they cannot therefore warranty what they speak. Why? Only demonstrations of preference tell us anything, and reported statements tell us nothing but what we wish to hear. This is why surveys are decreasingly in accuracy, and it’s questionable if they measure anything other than the intentions of the surveyors.
Note that with the decline of truthful speech in the postmodern era we have simply produced an increasing delta between reported and demonstrated preferences.
This pattern, in which we add or remove dimensions of reality given the subject matter of our speech (context) will appear as a constant theme throughout this book. Most of our speech across all our various disciplines consists of including or excluding dimensions of one kind or another so that we produce both content sufficient for communication of meaning, and limiting the scope of that meaning such that we avoid falsehood. And also, we will discover that falsehood is created by either communicating with insufficient and extraneous dimensions.
A statement(testimony) is True if its sufficiently consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete to provide decidability given the context of the question being decided.
A statement (testimony) is true if and only if it provides sufficient decidability given the demand for decidability in the context of the decision.
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
The spectrum of definitions of truth determines the scope of one’s promise of: identity, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness, and parsimony versus the Scope of warranty, demand for Infallibility, scale of Consequence (harm), and possibility of Restitution (correction):
The demand for each category of Truth is determined by:
Dimensions requiring Warranty of due Diligence
Demand for Infallibility
Scale of Consequence and
Possibility of Restitution
So if we take the sentence “that’s True”, and fully expand it we end up with:
“I promise (or I agree) that (or those) statement(s) consist(s) of constant relations that are (exist as):
1 – non-conflationary (identities),
2 – internally consistent (logical),
And;
3 – externally correspondent (empirical),
4 – operationally possible (possible),
And;
5 – consisting of rational choices (rational),
6 – that are reciprocal (ethical and moral),
And;
7 – that all of the above are coherent (consistent across all of the above), and;
8 – that the claims are limited in scope (to a max and minimum), and;
9 – fully accounted (complete) as a defense against cherry picking, and;
10 – parsimonious (not open to over-extension).
And;
11 – Each dimension has received sufficient due diligence
12 – To satisfy the demand for infallibility;
13 – In the effected population;
14 – Given the scope and scale of the possible consequences; and;
15 – The possibility of restoration and restitution.”
Which is so rich in content that it’s no wonder we process truth claims by intuition, and then struggle with the definition rather than attempt to decompose and articulate why we claim statements are either true or not. And worse, why we see so much conflation of the logical, rationalist, scientific, and operational uses of it.
Or stated differently: Truth is sufficiently complex a question that it causes overloading, and forces us to rely on intuition. But we are in the process of articulating the means of preventing overloading, and preserving the use of reason.
THE SPECTRUM OF TRUTH CLAIMS
Next we will define the Truth spectrum so that we begin to see what categories of truth we may claim without ignorance, error or deceit.
1) Tautological Truth (Linguistic): Domains: Referrers (names): Identity, Mathematics, Logical Equality, Textual Interpretation.
Actor: That testimony you give when promising the equality of the properties, relations, and conditionally, the values of two referrers by using two different terms: a circular definition; a statement of equality; or a statement of identity.
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your description provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Identity ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the indifference (lack of difference) between one term, concept, statement, construction, or argument, and another; provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Conclusion
Tautological truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between terms and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony.
2) Analytic Truth (Logical): Domains: Axiomatic: Mathematics, Logical Argument, Textual Interpretation.
Actor: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic (declarative) system (grammar). (A Logical Truth).
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations) provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the preservation of constant relations (internal consistency) across a set of given operations provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Conclusion
Analytic truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between statements, and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony.
Axiomatic (Systems) grammars, can be declared (arbitrary) and internally consistent, while theoretic must be observed (existential) and externally correspondent, while operational must be actionable (possible). And therefore existentially possible
3) Ideal Truth, The Truth, True (Unknowable, Ideal):
Domains: Logic: Identity, Mathematics, Rational Argument, Textual Interpretation, Models.
Actor: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, (or knowledgeable of the subject matter), and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations), external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context – and anticipating the possibility of future knowledge will falsify it. In other words, the observer estimates the unknown, the demand for infallibility, and the possibility of ignorance, error, bias, and the incentive for fraud, fictionalism, and deceit, versus the actor’s ( speaker’s) warranty (skin in the game).
Judge: The Truth( Ideal, Unknowable):
A promise of a perfectly parsimonious recipe for the reconstruction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.
Conclusion
As such non trivial ideal truths do not knowingly exist. And we should not engage in the pretense that other than trivial ideal truths exist as other than convenient fictions for the purpose of conveying meaning (teaching, communication), which must then be corrected from truth claims to truthful claims in order to provide warranty against misrepresentation, in the same way a parable using animals does in fact convey meaning, but also requires at the end, we state and extract and directly state the general rule of wisdom, morality, or ethics that the parable conveys by illustrative example.
The function use of Ideal Truth is to create an internally consistent model we can use to characterize (just as we do with fictional characters), and provide a cartoonish (simplified ) method of comparing that which is too complex for us to manage without such simplification.
As such the test of ideal truth is (a) whether the meaning conveyed is sufficiently infallible for the purpose claimed, and (b) whether it is sufficiently infallible that the the externalities (falsehoods) that the audience might, as a consequence, freely associate, induct, or deduct from it. In other words, that it is free of suggestion or obscurantism.
4) Truthful, Truthfulness (Testimonial, Knowable, “Scientific”):
Domains: Speech: Promissory Testimony, Commercial Testimony, Scientific Argument, Scientific Hypothesis, Theory and Law.Actor: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
Observer
An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that you have demonstrated internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, and limits, scope, and parsimony, to provide a warranty of one’s due diligence in the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Judge: Truthful Testimony ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Conclusion
Truthfulness is the only testimony it is possible to warranty as descriptive of existential reality. Ideal, Analytic, and Tautological Truth are merely testimony to internal consistency (constancy of relations) of expressions (language).
So to restate the differences between the True(Ideal, Imaginary) vs. Truthful (Due Diligence, Performative, Real), what is the difference between “Correspondence” and “Reconstruction”? The first is platonic (imaginary), the second operational (real).
5) Honesty (Knowable):
Domains: Speech: Interpersonal Testimony, Court Testimony; Reasonable Argument.
Actor: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that your description
Judge: Honest Testimony (Knowable):
A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence only against and deceit. It is for the jurists, and the jury to decide if you speak honestly. In practice both judges and juries seek to identify malincentives one the one hand and conformity to norm, tradition, and law on the other, by subjective testing of testimony to detect malincentives that might have been seized or at least influenced behavior.
Conclusion
Honesty consists of testimony that you do not engage in suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. It is a warranty against your pursuit of malincentives no matter how mild.
Categories of Honesty
Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
Honest Testimony () – ( … )
Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
Opinion: (Justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, un-criticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
6) Meaning(Comprehensible – Allegorical)Domain:Actor:Observer:Judge:Conclusion:7) Pragmatic Truth (Actionable – Rationality)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Decision, Action, Agreement.
Actor: The testimony you give promising the correspondence and coherence of one or more statements is sufficiently infallible for the meaning, decision, action, and consequences in the given context.
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements provides sufficient correspondence and coherence given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the utility of one or more statements due to sufficient correspondence, coherence, and infallibility provided with limited warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.”
Conclusion
Pragmatic Truth requires nothing other than Actionable or Decidable for the individual or group to obtain it’s want, and sufficiently infallible to provide warranty against irreciprocity (harm) that one might be forced to provide restitution against – regardless of identity, consistency, correspondence, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony.
In other words, true enough to remain blameless. Pragmatic truth is that definition of Truth most people operate by. Only those who must decide insurance of others and restitution in case of irreciprocity (harm), or who seek to compete by argument, or seek to expand our knowledge of the world concern ourselves with the rest.
8) Consensus Truth (“Agreement”, Consensual – Reciprocity)(agreement on paradigm)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Negotiation – Particularly in the context of fictionalism: politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion.
Actor: The testimony you give promising the coherence of one or more statements with consensus. Particularly some fictional paradigm.
Observer:
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements are coherent with consensus.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the adherence of a statement to consensus. Consensus need not require identity, consistency, correspondence, possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness or parsimony – only coherence.
Conclusion
In other words, coherent enough with group consensus to remain blameless. Consensus truth is required for all fictionalisms – particularly religion and ideology.
As such consensus truth is not truth whatsoever, but a promise of agreement, conformity, or approval.
Religion and Idealism in the ancient world, and Marxism, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the modern world, specifically rely upon Consensus (agreement) for decidability. They cannot survive the tests of consistency, correspondence, rationality of choice, reciprocity in particular, and limits, and completeness. But as ideologies they do not have this purpose. They seek only to gain consensus on means of obtaining power through the vulnerabilities of majority monopoly democracy. In the absence of democracy they seek to cause synchronicity of decision making such that by indirect action in speech (or deception), trade (or theft or fraud), and violence (or shirking or pacifism), they achieve their desired ends.
9) Ordinary Language Speech (Negotiation)Domain: Ordinary Speech
Actor: that speech you would utter when in common unwarrantied and unfiltered conversation.
Observer: The observer of that speech expecting exchange of information without externality of service or good, or impact upon service or good.
Judge: That the speech contains neither promise, nor demand, nor fraud.
Conclusion
Ordinary language consists entirely of Negotiating for something whether information, option, action, or material. We may or may not be conscious of what we are negotiating for, in large part because it’s often entertainment, attention, status, trust, belonging(approval), alliance – all of which are evolutionary incentives to acquire options on insurance against future risks to the same, no matter how small.
Much of the time, when not seeking options, we are seeking information. When not seeking information then cooperation. When we are not seeking cooperation we are seeking gift or exchange. If not then for alliances of some degree or another in the pursuit of some end or other.
As such, negotiations vary from deception to negotiation to status production, to option creation to entertainment. And we rely upon the entire spectrum of truth as the discourse at hand demands.
Proof
Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.
The Fallacy of Proof
One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.
You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.
The questions are un-falsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.
Justifiable(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)
Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.
There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.
But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.
Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(temporal), or insure (Intertemporal)
As soon as you admit the criteria of:
– deception and fraud
– incentive
– cost
– warranty
…. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.
REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION)
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)
|Knowlege| Free association > idea(survives) >
hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) >
law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) >
differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) >
[Loop].
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)
Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable))
Decidability under Prosecution:
Via Positiva Vs Via Negativa And The Competition Between Both
( … )
constructible vs deducible
THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT.
Rationalism was invented to attempt to reconstruct christianity without mysticism. I understand the great deceits. It’s but one of them.
Rationalism’s Obscurantism and Scriptural Mysticism are similar techniques. The Contemporary version uses propaganda and repetition. But the technique is reducible to suggestion by loading framing and overloading in all three. Suggestion works. The science says that we can’t even defend ourselves from it even if we work hard at it.
This is why we invented analytic philosophy and operational definitions in science. And why I have completed that project with testimonialism and propertarianism.
To make suggestion impossible.
At least to make it impossible in matters of finance, politics and law where it can be so readily used for ill.
Suggestion is necessary or teaching each other by analogy would be impossible.
Suggestion is necessary or supposition of intent would be impossible.
Supposition of intent is necessary or cooperation is impossible.
Cooperation is necessary or a division of labor and exchange is impossible.
But in all human cooperation and all transfer there is a difference between suggestion of meaning, and the test of truth.
We have been, as normal humans, attempting to define a single test of truth for millennia. But we have failed.
Because epistemology requires the transfer of meaning by suggestion, and the test of truth by criticism.
As such the single most important solution to communication is to limit the divergence between the means of communicating meaning, and the means of criticizing meaning.
This is what I believe we, I, have accomplished: to speak in a manner that the least difference between meaning and truth exists.
This is testimonialism.
The scientific method is a process of creativity followed by criticism. invention followed by testing. Imagination followed by survival from scrutiny.
The easiest way to limit suggestion is to refer to existential operations using a continuous point of view.
Operationalism.
With the tests of operationalism, we slowly train ourselves to speak the truth, just as we have slowly trained ourselves to speak in the language of science instead of the language of mystical analogy.
And the benefits of this truthfulness will be as great as the benefits of science.
====
Satisfying Demand
We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,
As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.
I’ll deflate it further into TESTIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.
TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).
DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.
WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.
And can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.
We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”
The question is whether one uses then truth that is sufficient for, and therefore survives the demand for, the circumstances.
====
SUMMARY
Demand for Decidability
Decidability
Testimony
Due Diligence
Warranty
Restitution
Truth claims are matters of law.
COMMUNICATION
Transfer of properties by analogy culminating in the transfer of experience (meaning) by the process of “suggestion”.
The process of creating shared experiences using symbols – primarily language.
TRUTH
(reconstruction of same experience)
(where the experience corresponds to reality)
FALSEHOOD
Imagination
Error
Bias
Wishful Thinking
Obscurantism
Suggestion
Deceit
SUGGESTION
Loading
Framing
Shaming
Rallying
Chanting
Overloading
OVERLOADING
Mysticism/Supernaturalism
Narrative/Literature
Rationalism/Verbalism
Pseudoscience/Innumeracy
UNLOADING
Truthfulness
TRUTHFULNESS
Due diligence that we have not engaged in deception, or error, bias, wishful thinking, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit.
DUE DILIGENCE
We perform due diligence by testing every dimension of knowledge we know how to. (just as we have different mathematics for each of the increasing dimensions):
Identity and Category
Internal Consistency (logic)
External Correspondence (empirical consistency)
Existential Possibility (operational definitions)
Parsimony, Limits, Full Accounting (limits)
Morality (Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same.)
KNOWLEDGE
There is only one sequence to knowledge, and all others are false:
Perception(observation) -> Free Association(awareness) -> Hypothesis(guess) -> Theory(Due Diligence) -> Law(Survival) -> Tautology(identity/name) -OR- False
Knowledge is not a qualifier as some pretend, nor does it or can it convey truth content. It is anything in any state of the process of knowledge evolution that we can observe, are aware of, imagine possible, seems consistent, cannot seem to falsify, that is not yet false.
Knowledge: anything that works for the purposes we intend and we cannot yet deem false.
SCIENCE
Science = due diligence. While we cannot know if we speak the most parsimonious truth, or whether we speak the truth, what we can do
THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSFERRING EXPERIENCES
(we use scientific language because it imposes the lowest cost of truth testing upon the audience. we avoid scientific language because we wish to impose costs upon the audience. We embrace unscientific language when we want to deceive.)
THE CREATIVITY OF MEANING AND THE CRITICISM OF TRUTH
(two part process: 1-transfer meaning, 2-test for truth – Reverse, Obverse)
RESTITUTION
(limiting harm)
WARRANTY
(skin in the game)
=================== Where does this go?
Yields:
|Yields|: (Potentials/Forces > Operations > Symmetries) > (Algorithm > Model > Simulation) > (Axiom > Proof) > Law(Model) > (Theory > Paradigm) > (Sentence > Story).
========================
