Form: Full Essay

FOR HOPPEIANS (….THIS POST IS A WORK IN PROGRESS…) In simplest terms I trans

https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS

(….THIS POST IS A WORK IN PROGRESS…)

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 SUPPRESSION OF DECEPTION AMONG A HIGH TRUST PEOPLE

(suppression)

CONFLATION, PLATONISM, AND ABRAHAMISM OLD AND NEW.

Lets translate Kantian Rationalism into scientific and testimonial speech.

I’m going to teach epistemology by using economics in order to repair much of the damage that has been done to epistemology by the Platonists(mathematics), and the Rationalists (Kant etc), and the Analytic Philosophers (Just about all of the 20th century).

*Reality consists of a limited number of actionable dimensions and by using economics we are able to include all of them, and therefore avoid the errors that the platonists, rationalists, and analytics have introduced into philosophy.

“DEFINITIONS AND SERIES”

1) Empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. “From Observation”.

2) Testimonial

3) A Priori:

“independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, 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)

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 – Action tests correspondence – measurement (deflation)

4 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation)

5 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation)

6 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation)

7 – 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 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.

THE SCIENTIFIC (UNIVERSAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL) METHOD

“DEFLATION”

(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.

“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. (ie: godel. 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.

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. (ie: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 assumptions*

“SPECIAL CASES”

7) This universal epistemological process is universal 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-Deporation 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

“SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”

The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.

a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.

+Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.

(As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)

b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy

+Entrepreneurial Class Bias.

(the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)

The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.

c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.

+Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)

All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.

d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy

+Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).

All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.

e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism

+Underclass (outsider) Bias.

This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.

POINT BY POINT TRANSLATION OF HOPPE’S KANTIAN RATIONALISM INTO SCIENTIFIC TERMS

The difference between rationalism(justification) in morality and law, and science(criticism) in testimony about the world, is that while rationalism is additive and uses an explanation of a set of statements that I can ‘get away with saying’, criticism is subtractive and

mathematics

( The Article: https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ )

I’ve included the text of the article below, but it is easier to read using the formatting on the web site where I use ‘bold’ to emphasize key points. In the article I try to refute most of Hoppe’s rationalisms, and replace them with scientific versions.

[I] consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s aprioristic justificationary rationalism in ratio-scientific terms.

Hoppe’s errors are natural for a German philosopher who was trained by Marxists. And while the errors are substantial by today’s standards, they are limited to errors in construction (justification), with his conclusions from his justifications surviving. This is important. From Hoppe’s earliest work onward, his deductions from incentives are correct.

– We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules, and we criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translate to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.” Hoppe confuses legal justification (excuse making), with truth (survival from all competition). As Mises discovered but failed to understand, truth propositions including human choice require the possibility of constructing a sequence of rational choices AND the survival from categorical, logical, empirical falsification. Truth propositions survive competition.

– Possession demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and property exist after an agreement to cooperate. Scarcity exists prior to cooperation. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of possession nor the origination of property.

– Different sets of Property rights evolve in communities due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation at the given level of division of ability, knowledge and labor – and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation. We pay for cooperation by forgoing opportunities to use or consume that which others have already invested in using and consuming. Man like other animals retaliates against the imposition of costs upon that which he has himself born costs with the intent to inventory. The universal demonstration of altruistic punishment (disproportionately costly punishment of free riders, parasites, predators) demonstrates the evolutionary necessity and value of cooperation as the most costly and scarce good. (thus upending libertarianism’s attempt to suggest cooperation can be obtained for free, or that it is the natural bias of man or animal. instead, man and animal are rational. we cooperate when possible, parasite when possible and prey when possible, depending upon costs.)

– Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that factm no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and whle we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to:

(a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,

(b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either

(c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation

(d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,

(e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.

So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.

– The minimum scope of property necessary to construct a reciprocal exchange, in order to provide minimum incentives for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is property-en-toto, or what we call “demonstrated-property” (demonstrated defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), and the minimum scope of property is not IVP: intersubjectively verifiable property – (property that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.) Arguably Hoppe suggests that IVP is merely a minimum criteria and that all other properties must be arbitrarily constructed upon it. However, this means that IVP is an insufficient criteria for a basis for law. Whereas Property in Toto (demonstrated property) is a sufficient criteria for the basis for law. In other words, physical property is insufficient for the formation of a polity, it is merely sufficient for cooperation between states (organized polities).

– The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property in toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deception and cheating. A rational anarchic polity can only form under property en toto, not IVP.

– Those arguably voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, because larger states have used squatters, settlers and settlers and given away territorial rights in borderlands in order to hold it from competitors cheaply, without having to invest heavily, but still giving them an excuse to conduct war if attempts taken against it. If those have evolved for other reasons, they have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

– The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism (a militia) and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

– Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) as a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperative and economic phenomenon, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights have been in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

Rothbardian libertarianism is just the extremism of the Marxist prohibition on Private Property inverted into an the extremism of a Marxist prohibition on Common Property – despite the fact that property rights can only exist as a commons, and no polity can survive competition for people and trade, and against competitors without providing commons as the multipliers necessary to do so.

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 18:20:00 UTC

July 25, 2017
ON CONVERSION TO PAGANISM AND ON RELIGION IN GENERAL (important) (prepare for so

ON CONVERSION TO PAGANISM AND ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

(important) (prepare for some ‘ouch’ moments) (answer three for dagon)

First, my view of ‘paganism’ would be this: that it is quite possible to study the history (or legend) of our existing heroes (Alexander, Aristotle, Caesar, Newton, Shakespeare, Washington, Jesus ) and then to build statues and temples to visit, and subconsciously converse with our mental images of them. And by doing so create investments and therefore value, in the values, virtues, and behaviors we associate with them. And that this is a purely scientific process that in fact functions as we desire it to for the same reason imagining conversations with other people you know very well do. And we get a psychic reward for having done such things. This does in fact train us to behave as we desire to. And through synchronicity of many people doing the same, bring about the influence on ourselves, families and society by our numbers, that we wish we could bring about if we had the power and influence of our heroes. So this is my view of paganism. It is a purely scientific ‘spiritual’ (psychological) method of self training and personal and social transformation. Metaphysically, we do, by such practices, and such synchronicity, produce social consequences the same way that markets indirectly produce social consequences. We do not agree or conspire directly but indirectly. That we think this is or requires some sort of magic is nonsense. It merely requires practice like any other discipline. (I can imagine myself talking to any number of historical figures. it’s not difficult. We all do it.)

And, furthermore, I can understand prohibiting such temples, statues, symbols that were antagonistic to the polity. After all, churches, temples, statues, and symbols are method of claiming territory on behalf of a group’s evolutionary strategy. So preventing such claims is necessary, not only desirable.

Second, as far as I know, “Religion” and “Education” constitute a false dichotomy. There is no difference between them. These are the properties of Religion(normative and personal skills) and Education (Commercial Skills). In other words, Religion for peoples who have not yet entered the market because they are subsistence farmers, and Education for people who have entered the market because they are no longer subsistence farmers.

We need these forms of eduction:

– Festival(feast) – Trust through celebration

– Sport (competition) – Trust through teamwork

– Ritual(sacredness) – Trust through self constraint

– Virtues(ethics) – Universal and Normative Success

– Mindfulness(self) – Psychological insulation from consequences of informational scarcity in a market/society)

– Crafts(trade) – method of providing reciprocal value to the tribe so it is possible to survive in it.

All of these rituals deprive us of selfishness and make it possible to succeed in all aspects of society.

So in my perspective Religion is an anti market education system and taught cheaply to people who do not have market influences to shape their ethics, and Education as we understand it evolved to Transition people into market ethics so that they would succeed and understand market ethics (meritocracy), and how they differ from subsistence ethics (equality). And that this separation was rational given that it is very cheap to teach people by lying and allegory and equality, and it is more expensive to teach people by history and calculation, and meritocracy.

The problem being that none of us are subsistence farmers, and all of us live in the market and have no other choice any longer to return to the fields. The territorial value of the individually farmable earth was maximized long ago.

So as far as I understand it religion is just a cheap way to enslave people by teaching them sufficient information to survive as agrarians and pastoralists but not enough information, nor the right information, to survive in a market society where we cannot judge our actions by whether they are equal to that of others, but by whether they facilitate exchange with others to whom we are increasingly and eternally unequal.

If you can understand this, and are intellectually honest, you will likely – with some great discomfort – come to accept that all attempts to preserve ‘religion’ in the sense of the mythical and supernatural is actually extremely destructive to mankind. And the reason the door is still open for the Abrahamic deceptions via abrahamic religions, Abrahamic pesudo-rationalisms (continental philosophy), and Abrahamic pseudosciences (Boazian Anthropology, Freudian psychology, Darwinian Denial, IQ Denial, Class Denial, Gender Denial, Race Denial, Merit Denial, Marxist Socialist economic denial, postmodern truth denial) is that we have failed to close the door on our tolerance for lying.

My very simple reasoning:

*I place a higher value on truth, reason, and the elimination of error, despite the higher cost, than I place on meaningfulness, intuition, and the identification of opportunities despite the lower cost.*

In other words, I see cheap intuitionism as an immoral discount on expensive reason, and a means of justifying suggestion and indoctrination rather than rational choice and learning. So I see abrahamism as one of the worst and most immoral inventions in all of human history. And the cause of the dark age, and the cause of the islamic cancer that spread during it – including the loss of the great civilizations of the ancient world forever. And the Abrahamic-marxist-postmodernist cancer that still spreads today.

And so I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘accessibility’ are any more important than the hard work of truth. I mean, we teach expensive literacy, mathematics, sciences, economics, and history. And we in the past taught expensive vocabulary, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Why is it that we cannot also teach expensive testimonialism: natural law and the logic of cooperation? Why can’t we teach history as a series of biographical narratives of the people who made the great insights and transformations in each of those fields? Even if you want to preserve the Buddha and Jesus why cannot they be stated in historical terms and studied for their innovations, rather than continuing their justification by abrahamic deception?

You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and teaching lying.

Now, it is true that Aesop’s fables, and fairy tales, and legends that have been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years are valuable to children. It is true that heroes of the greek myths are merely superheroes. This is a simple mythos of the hearth and home – not a mythos of the polity.

And yes it uses anthropomorphism to simplify the communication to children the same way cartoons simplify the richness of human subtle expression so that children can grasp the more obvious communication. But why can we not directly transition into the teaching of virtues for children(grammar age). The transition into comparisons (logic age), and transition into self authoring ( rhetoric age )?

You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and thereby teaching lying.

The greek dark age after the bronze age collapse (1177bc), included the loss of writing and of memories of history. So the greeks had to invent via homer, a new history and a new group evolutionary strategy: resistance of the tyranny of the east. And they had to invent their gods.

We are not in that position. by all evidence in all of history, western man has defeated his own limitations, taken a seat among his ancient gods, and there is more to learn from the memories of real men and real achievements than there is from characters we would have to invent in order to equal them. There is greater glory in the study of our ancestors than in the study of any of the gods – all of whom are far worse than any man every thought to be.

In fact let me say this: the reason to invent gods is because your family, your clan, your people are shit failures in history. And any attempt to create such gods is merely to try to avoid the truth that your people are shit failures in history. It’s nothing but inventing a heritage you do not have. So it is better to find a realistic hero to learn from or a portfolio of real heroes and seek to change that history than remain the consequence of it.

So I am anti-falsehood. And I am pro education. And I do not mean the current education system that is abrahamic in teaching deceit. But the time of ‘religion’ in the old sense is gone. The time of ‘Moral’ education is present. And there is no special pleading for the means of teaching morality. because the lightest test of morality is truth, the next fraud, the next theft, and the next harm, and the next murder, and the next evil: intention of harm for no purpose other than harm.

I think almost all intellectuals – at least at the very top of the intellectual pyramid – go through a fairly similar evolutionary process of finding something that they feel is not right, falsifying everything they can in order to find a solution to what they feel is not right, then applying that solution to the intellectual frameworks we live by, then accumulating enough experience that our ‘mythologies’ *can* contain general rules that have survived the tests of the markets for such rules over long periods of history. And that by using this network of myth, we can ‘calculate’ understanding that we cannot calculate by any other means. For the simple reason that the informational density of the temporal narrative, when made mythical (not supernatural) and therefore intertemporal(immortal), allows us to calculate a broader set of very imprecise problems in the very high information density that we call ‘reality’. And that through many of us using these same rules, we function more as a ‘hive mind’ that is unconscious but still ‘calculating’ our success, one human decision serving as a sort of ‘neuron’ in the network of that brain we call ‘society’.

But while I understand that the purpose and value of enduring myths, and the superhuman ability of the gods, demigods, heroes and saints of those myths, is necessary for the purpose of illustration, and that the immortality of those gods and demigods is necessary for the intergenerational transfer and persistence of those myths, the relationship with those gods and demigods can mirror our civilization’s strategy or undermine it.

In the case of western civilization the fact that the gods merely represent a parental extended family with as many different talents as our own; that for every possible person on this earth there is some god that he can appeal to; that our relationship is contractual; that we can outwit or out compete them if we try; that we can earn our places among them by heroism, and that our purpose on this earth is to leave it changed for the better for having lived it, and to be remembered for it. And that we should strive to discipline and deed to develop the virtues that allow us to transcend the animal impulses. Well, that is about as close to a scientific religion as possible.

And as far as I know, the purpose of science is to understand the laws of the universe – and among them men. And that having done so, we then understand the language of the gods. For it is their language that the universe is written in.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:32:00 UTC

July 23, 2017
ON RADICALISM, ARISTOCRACY, AND PAGANISM, (read this) (and prepare for “ouch” mo

ON RADICALISM, ARISTOCRACY, AND PAGANISM,

(read this) (and prepare for “ouch” moments)

—“Hi Curt. I’ve been following you for a long time. Your radical ideas inspired me to change my own life. I wanted to tell you I think you’re probably one of if not the best voices out there for young men. I was wondering what inspired your change from a more libertarian scientific worldview to a much more revolutionary pagan worldview like you have now.”— Dagon

Well you know, this kind of thing matters to me a lot. It always makes my day. And If I can help young men then that is as good or better as being remembered in the history of thought.

ON RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY

There are a couple of things that turned me into a revolutionary.

The constant lying by leftist politicians via the media. The constant lying by the media. The fact that I was very well read by the time I got to university, and that I felt that most professors were lying or propagandizing. That when I went into the business world, I worked for three companies that lied aggressively to customers (all jewish fwiw). Then when I worked with at least moderately observant christians it was the opposite.

But it was how I was treated in divorce from a woman who cheated on me, and child support – which I can understand for a year or so but not more so. And I certainly don’t think children or women have a right to previous standards of living. or community property. omg.

Then how courts said I had to hire people by anything other than merit. And that it was illegal to try to discover people’s merit via testing. And then how women have excessive rights in the work place, and that there is no means of defense against it. And that between false unemployment claims, and false sexual harassment claims, and then the all out impossible requirement that CEO’s understand and are accountable for everything their employees do (the impossible), but employees, bureaucrats, (the irs), police, judges, and politicians are not accountable for anything they do.

Then how the courts simply punish the hell out of poor white guys, homeowners, and minivan-mom-drivers who are easy targets, but leave us victims of all sorts of criminals because of costs of imprisoning them.

Then how immigration was used as genocide against my people. I remember what life was like and how it changed, and I know the difference between homogenous and heterogeneous communities and what happens: a reduction in ‘precision’ which accumulates in a reduction of everything that makes a high trust polity possible.

Then how my people were enslaved through fiat money and incrementally exterminated. It is one thing to use upward redistribution to increase the quality of a polity, and it is another to increase downward in redistribution to reduce the quality of the polity. At least the aryan method of upward redistribution produces transcendence in every possible method. But the jewish (levantine) method of downward redistribution produces regression and dysgenia.

Then how every merger and acquisition lawyer and venture capitalist would tell me how to do something immoral in business – and that the better the law firm the more corrupting and immoral the legal advice. Compare that to the two ‘very christian’ female lawyers that would not help me defend against them by advocating feminist equalitarianism among share holders. I felt the world had gone mad.

Then how during the divorce, when I was going in for cancer surgery, the court didn’t care and forced me to settle or delay my surgery until after a trial.

Then how my ex-wife’s lawyer could use art and artifice through the courts to harass me in ways you cannot imagine to the point where I simply needed to leave the country in order to build a business.

And how, during the recession why are landlord contracts given higher weight than other price contracts, when they have only debt service, and why is that debt service more important than other commitments when in fact, it’s all simply credit money (time). Why are creditors treated unequally, and not only unequally but the reverse of risk?

The final blow was two fold 1) when obama criminalized me and thousands of others if we didn’t file a retroactive report on our overseas holdings. Holdings I had paid taxes on. When it was my only defense against the abuse of the courts by my ex-wife’s attorney to harass and blackmail me. And 2) when I had misunderstood a date of the sale of a business and thought the s-corp to c-corp change was done prior to the sale rather than after. While the IRS owed me a quarter of a million dollars refund because of the difference, they froze every asset I had on the globe and nearly destroyed by business and stranded me in a third world country without any money. Yet they told me I had no right of judicial defense unless I would go through a single court in person in california. I ask what was the maximum they could imagine I owed the IRS if I was wrong, and they said no more than 125k, (even though they owed me 250k), I said if they unfroze my assets or simply took 125k, I would send them the 125K, and then, we could correct the paperwork later. But no. So some lower middle class bimbo ex-bill collector can destroy my life without judicial review. And then disappeared for four weeks of government christmas holiday, leaving me no ability to act. Thankfully I had loan due from a small business of 50k, and that carried me for the three months it took to correct it. The truth is none of our irs collections make any difference. Our use of fiat money means that the timeliness of such payments is all but irrelevant. It’s all just power playing on the part of the govt and the bureaucracy.

I left that experience with a lot less hair and an absolute determination to overthrow the current order and restore the constitution of natural law under which no discretionary action is possible without juridical defense, and where the citizen not the government is given the full benefit of the doubt.

So instead of trying to simply produce the missing ‘bible of western civilization’: natural law, I developed a broader plan, and I’ve been working toward that plan, every single waking hour of every single day. And the opportunity to execute that plan is coming closer every day. And I am nothing if not painfully thorough, painfully disciplined, and painfully committed to that plan.

So that incremental unjust tyranny is the reason I became a hostile revolutionary with endless conviction.

ON OPTIMISITIC LIBERTARIANISM VS PESSIMISTIC SOVEREIGNTY

The Anglo classical liberalism of the enlightenment was profoundly optimistic about both British future, their responsibility, and the nature of man. All the enlightenment thinkers were optimistic – other than the germans. They were cautious. They handled their caution by secularizing religion and retaining the conflation of christianity, where the anglo world had deflated (separated) religion(family and polity) and law(commerce and science) into their usual markets.

But as the world wars hit us, we lost our convictions. The marxists, bolsheviks, and socialists were rallying our people against us with the promise of achievable wealth and equality, and inverting the social order in ways that the Church attempted but never could have imagined with promise of life after death, and at least the protection from the aristocracy by the church – and where the aristocracy would have exterminated more aggressively than Henry the 8th the monasteries, and thereby freed up vast capital held frozen by the backwardness of the church. (And where we will shortly have to exterminate the church-of-state we call secular anti-aristocratic-family socialism.)

I am, by nature, a libertarian. I hate conflict. I like cooperation. I like people to be happy. I am overly generous by nature – which I should add, has not been good for me. My great joys have been creating successful companies and watching people prosper in them.

But as I have learned through experience at all levels of society from my personal, to professional, to entrepreneurial, to financial, to economic, and to political – and now philosophical, I have come to understand a few very key issues.

1) Our genes drive us so all political persuasion/discourse is meaningless.

2) No one can be converted away from their genetic strategy. Many men can be because we form a hierarchy that is interdependent and so middle and lower men require middle and upper men to form an ‘army’. Women CAN be marginally converted to meritocracy, if all required to be married to bear children or vote. But otherwise vote anti-meritocratically (equalitarian) and in effect ‘marry the state’ thereby destroying the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies that we call the family: the smallest possible tribe in which men and women are both alphas.

3) Majoritarian democracy forces the policy of persuasion which is meaningless, and therefore forces all of us to lie cheat in public policy rather than to use the houses of government as a means for exchange between peoples with very different interests.

4) Aristocracy(meritocracy) is incompatible with democracy since there are always fewer competent than competent (Pareto rule). The end result of Democracy is authoritarian communism. As such the minority strategy of opposing the aristocracy via enfranchisement with the larger middle class was used by the larger lower classes against the middle and upper. And the end result is the destruction of western civilization by the combination of abrahamic religion and democratic equality.

5) The Abrahamic program from its origin by the jews (resistance to the aristocracy), the christians (undermining the aristocracy), and the muslims (openly conquering the aristocracy) , to the marxists (openly revolting against the aristocracy by promise of more returns) to the postmoderns (openly revolting against the aristocracy by poisoning the informational commons and the basis for meritocracy:merit not only of self but of family) – this program has been intentionally composed in both the ancient (Constantine thru Justinian) and in the modern (marx thru Derrida) as a method of destroying the aristocracy.

6) The destruction of the aristocracy in Greece, Persia, the Levant, North Africa, and India was complete, leaving only Europe and east Asia standing. The attempt by the marxists and postmoderns has succeeded in Germany, France, and Russia. It has succeeded in Canada and Australia. But because of our dependence on the martial class in America and Britain, it has had a greater difficulty here. So the problem is that (a) the prosecutions by the romans and the nazis was not severe and complete enough to save western civlization. What has been interesting is Putin’s prosecution of them, which is why (had he not flinched in Ukraine) he was and is setting the example for the west. Whereas china has no qualms at all about suppression. The fundamental problem most of the world faces, is that other than china we are not suppressing islam as we need to: totally. Which is why I want to suppress all abrahamism totally by suppressing all false speech in public.

So as I have learned that discourse is fruitless I have ended my interest in voluntaryism in favor of natural law and markets in everything, which solve the problem of differences in interests by the competition between total positive market and total negative law.

And as I have learned how the abrahamists have used the art of suggestion using overloading, conflation and fictionalism, against eugenic meritocracy, truth, and aristocracy, I have changed my focus on private property to the entire suite of capital (property in toto), and changed my bias toward unregulated speech, to demand for warranty of due diligence against false and immoral speech.

This results in basically ‘Fascism of Markets including Truth and Morality in Actions, Display, and Speech – thereby making other than meritocracy impossible to survive.

ON PAGANISM

First, my view of ‘paganism’ would be this: that it is quite possible to study the history (or legend) of our existing heroes (Alexander, Aristotle, Caesar, Newton, Shakespeare, Washington, Jesus ) and then to build statues and temples to visit, and subconsciously converse with our mental images of them. And by doing so create investments and therefore value, in the values, virtues, and behaviors we associate with them. And that this is a purely scientific process that in fact functions as we desire it to for the same reason imagining conversations with other people you know very well do. And we get a psychic reward for having done such things. This does in fact train us to behave as we desire to. And through synchronicity of many people doing the same, bring about the influence on ourselves, families and society by our numbers, that we wish we could bring about if we had the power and influence of our heroes. So this is my view of paganism. It is a purely scientific ‘spiritual’ (psychological) method of self training and personal and social transformation. Metaphysically, we do, by such practices, and such synchronicity, produce social consequences the same way that markets indirectly produce social consequences. We do not agree or conspire directly but indirectly. That we think this is or requires some sort of magic is nonsense. It merely requires practice like any other discipline. (I can imagine myself talking to any number of historical figures. it’s not difficult. We all do it.)

And, furthermore, I can understand prohibiting such temples, statues, symbols that were antagonistic to the polity. After all, churches, temples, statues, and symbols are method of claiming territory on behalf of a group’s evolutionary strategy. So preventing such claims is necessary, not only desirable.

Second, as far as I know, “Religion” and “Education” constitute a false dichotomy. There is no difference between them. These are the properties of Religion(normative and personal skills) and Education (Commercial Skills). In other words, Religion for peoples who have not yet entered the market because they are subsistence farmers, and Education for people who have entered the market because they are no longer subsistence farmers.

We need these forms of eduction:

– Festival(feast) – Trust through celebration

– Sport (competition) – Trust through teamwork

– Ritual(sacredness) – Trust through self constraint

– Virtues(ethics) – Universal and Normative Success

– Mindfulness(self) – Psychological insulation from consequences of informational scarcity in a market/society)

– Crafts(trade) – method of providing reciprocal value to the tribe so it is possible to survive in it.

All of these rituals deprive us of selfishness and make it possible to succeed in all aspects of society.

So in my perspective Religion is an anti market education system and taught cheaply to people who do not have market influences to shape their ethics, and Education as we understand it evolved to Transition people into market ethics so that they would succeed and understand market ethics (meritocracy), and how they differ from subsistence ethics (equality). And that this separation was rational given that it is very cheap to teach people by lying and allegory and equality, and it is more expensive to teach people by history and calculation, and meritocracy.

The problem being that none of us are subsistence farmers, and all of us live in the market and have no other choice any longer to return to the fields. The territorial value of the individually farmable earth was maximized long ago.

So as far as I understand it religion is just a cheap way to enslave people by teaching them sufficient information to survive as agrarians and pastoralists but not enough information, nor the right information, to survive in a market society where we cannot judge our actions by whether they are equal to that of others, but by whether they facilitate exchange with others to whom we are increasingly and eternally unequal.

If you can understand this, and are intellectually honest, you will likely – with some great discomfort – come to accept that all attempts to preserve ‘religion’ in the sense of the mythical and supernatural is actually extremely destructive to mankind. And the reason the door is still open for the Abrahamic deceptions via abrahamic religions, Abrahamic pesudo-rationalisms (continental philosophy), and Abrahamic pseudosciences (Boazian Anthropology, Freudian psychology, Darwinian Denial, IQ Denial, Class Denial, Gender Denial, Race Denial, Merit Denial, Marxist Socialist economic denial, postmodern truth denial) is that we have failed to close the door on our tolerance for lying.

My very simple reasoning:

*I place a higher value on truth, reason, and the elimination of error, despite the higher cost, than I place on meaningfulness, intuition, and the identification of opportunities despite the lower cost.*

In other words, I see cheap intuitionism as an immoral discount on expensive reason, and a means of justifying suggestion and indoctrination rather than rational choice and learning. So I see abrahamism as one of the worst and most immoral inventions in all of human history. And the cause of the dark age, and the cause of the islamic cancer that spread during it – including the loss of the great civilizations of the ancient world forever. And the Abrahamic-marxist-postmodernist cancer that still spreads today.

And so I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘accessibility’ are any more important than the hard work of truth. I mean, we teach expensive literacy, mathematics, sciences, economics, and history. And we in the past taught expensive vocabulary, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Why is it that we cannot also teach expensive testimonialism: natural law and the logic of cooperation? Why can’t we teach history as a series of biographical narratives of the people who made the great insights and transformations in each of those fields? Even if you want to preserve the Buddha and Jesus why cannot they be stated in historical terms and studied for their innovations, rather than continuing their justification by abrahamic deception?

You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and teaching lying.

Now, it is true that Aesop’s fables, and fairy tales, and legends that have been with us for hundreds if not thousands of years are valuable to children. It is true that heroes of the greek myths are merely superheroes. This is a simple mythos of the hearth and home – not a mythos of the polity.

And yes it uses anthropomorphism to simplify the communication to children the same way cartoons simplify the richness of human subtle expression so that children can grasp the more obvious communication. But why can we not directly transition into the teaching of virtues for children(grammar age). The transition into comparisons (logic age), and transition into self authoring ( rhetoric age )?

You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and thereby teaching lying.

The greek dark age after the bronze age collapse (1177bc), included the loss of writing and of memories of history. So the greeks had to invent via homer, a new history and a new group evolutionary strategy: resistance of the tyranny of the east. And they had to invent their gods.

We are not in that position. by all evidence in all of history, western man has defeated his own limitations, taken a seat among his ancient gods, and there is more to learn from the memories of real men and real achievements than there is from characters we would have to invent in order to equal them. There is greater glory in the study of our ancestors than in the study of any of the gods – all of whom are far worse than any man every thought to be.

In fact let me say this: the reason to invent gods is because your family, your clan, your people are shit failures in history. And any attempt to create such gods is merely to try to avoid the truth that your people are shit failures in history. It’s nothing but inventing a heritage you do not have. So it is better to find a realistic hero to learn from or a portfolio of real heroes and seek to change that history than remain the consequence of it.

So I am anti-falsehood. And I am pro education. And I do not mean the current education system that is abrahamic in teaching deceit. But the time of ‘religion’ in the old sense is gone. The time of ‘Moral’ education is present. And there is no special pleading for the means of teaching morality. because the lightest test of morality is truth, the next fraud, the next theft, and the next harm, and the next murder, and the next evil: intention of harm for no purpose other than harm.

I think almost all intellectuals – at least at the very top of the intellectual pyramid – go through a fairly similar evolutionary process of finding something that they feel is not right, falsifying everything they can in order to find a solution to what they feel is not right, then applying that solution to the intellectual frameworks we live by, then accumulating enough experience that our ‘mythologies’ *can* contain general rules that have survived the tests of the markets for such rules over long periods of history. And that by using this network of myth, we can ‘calculate’ understanding that we cannot calculate by any other means. For the simple reason that the informational density of the temporal narrative, when made mythical (not supernatural) and therefore intertemporal(immortal), allows us to calculate a broader set of very imprecise problems in the very high information density that we call ‘reality’. And that through many of us using these same rules, we function more as a ‘hive mind’ that is unconscious but still ‘calculating’ our success, one human decision serving as a sort of ‘neuron’ in the network of that brain we call ‘society’.

But while I understand that the purpose and value of enduring myths, and the superhuman ability of the gods, demigods, heroes and saints of those myths, is necessary for the purpose of illustration, and that the immortality of those gods and demigods is necessary for the intergenerational transfer and persistence of those myths, the relationship with those gods and demigods can mirror our civilization’s strategy or undermine it.

In the case of western civilization the fact that the gods merely represent a parental extended family with as many different talents as our own; that for every possible person on this earth there is some god that he can appeal to; that our relationship is contractual; that we can outwit or out compete them if we try; that we can earn our places among them by heroism, and that our purpose on this earth is to leave it changed for the better for having lived it, and to be remembered for it. And that we should strive to discipline and deed to develop the virtues that allow us to transcend the animal impulses. Well, that is about as close to a scientific religion as possible.

And as far as I know, the purpose of science is to understand the laws of the universe – and among them men. And that having done so, we then understand the language of the gods. For it is their language that the universe is written in.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:24:00 UTC

July 23, 2017
WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS? I’ve written exte

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS?

I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.

THE SHORT VERSION

If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.

If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.

If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.

But let’s go into some detail.

THE SCHOOLS

The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.

The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’.

So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.

Austrian (Virginia):

The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)

Freshwater (Chicago):

The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)

Saltwater (New York):

The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)

This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.

At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.

UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

-Economics (Money)-

There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.

-Government (Production of Commons)-

It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).

THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL

Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.

So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.

He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).

Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.

But this is logically and empirically false.

People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;

People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.

Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.

Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).

What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.

So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.

And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.

THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS

We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.

The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.

The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.

The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine.

Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle).

The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.

Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.

-Deflation vs Conflation-

Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)

While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).

Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.

Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.

This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).

So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.

Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.

CLOSING

So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*

—-

NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 18:58:00 UTC

July 21, 2017
PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE

PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 10:14:00 UTC

July 19, 2017
EVERYTHING THE ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY STUDENT WILL EVER WANT TO KNOW ABOUT EPISTE

EVERYTHING THE ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY STUDENT WILL EVER WANT TO KNOW ABOUT EPISTEMOLOGY TAUGHT AS IT MUST BE, VIA ECONOMICS – CLASS ONE

(profound)

Jared, (All),

I should get an award for being the most patient teacher of petulant youth. But I admire your persistence. So lets exercise your brain a bit. Maybe you have the stuff. Here is a graduate course in epistemology.

So, let’s keep trying. Lets translate Kantian Rationalism into scientific and testimonial speech.

I’m going to teach epistemology by using economics in order to repair much of the damage that has been done to epistemology by the Platonists(mathematics), and the Rationalists (Kant etc), and the Analytic Philosophers (Just about all of the 20th century).

*Reality consists of a limited number of actionable dimensions and by using economics we are able to include all of them, and therefore avoid the errors that the platonists, rationalists, and analytics have introduced into philosophy.

“DEFINITIONS AND SERIES”

1) Empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. “From Observation”.

2) A Priori:

“independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, 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.

(a) identity (numbers)

(b) logical (sets)

(c) empirical (ratios)

(d) existential (constructible)

(e) time is unaccounted for in the a priori model.

Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality

(a) point

(b) line

(c) shape

(d) object

(e) time (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)(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.)

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).

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.

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’. 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.

(NOTE: Now that’s sufficiently complicated that I almost confused myself, and I might need a day away from it to make sure I didn’t screw up what someone might read into those last two paragraphs, but otherwise it’s correct.)

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 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.

THE SCIENTIFIC (UNIVERSAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL) METHOD

“DEFLATION”

(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.

“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. (ie: godel. 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.

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. (ie: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 assumptions*

“SPECIAL CASES”

7) This universal epistemological process is universal 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-Deporation 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

“SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”

The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.

a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.

+Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.

(As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)

b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy

+Entrepreneurial Class Bias.

(the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)

The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.

c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.

+Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)

All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.

d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy

+Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).

All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.

e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism

+Underclass (outsider) Bias.

This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

–“…performative…”

You keep using terms that I don’t think you understand, which is why Kant invented those terms: to conflate the empirical and the rational. He was afraid of the anglo empirical revolution. For good reason.

—“…morality…”—

Correct. Morality (reciprocity) requires inter-agent action. So does all economic activity. Economic activity can consist of moral (reciprocal) and immoral (unequal, irreciprocal) actions. We can make a claim that statements about irreciprocal (involuntary) actions in economics are immoral or we can claim that they are false. Whether you understand it or not, Mises is saying that its false not immoral, when he says ‘it’s not economics’.

—“That you can verify something in reality doesn’t mean you need to empirically test it.”—

We cannot solve the problem of ‘all other things being equal’ in order to understand why predicted phenomenon either vary widely, or do not exist.

The neutrality of money does not appear to exist, because relative changes can propagate into various niches that absorb those changes, just like pennies being lost in landfills (so to speak).

—“I can observe that two plus two equals four but I don’t need to design an empirical test to prove it.”—

Yes but then it’s a tautology, whereas the nearly all economic phenomenon are only general rules.

—“Likewise, I can observe that minimum wages increase unemployment all other things being equal, but I don’t need to conduct an empirical test to prove it.”—

That’s just the thing, we aren’t trying to prove that it should increase unemployment, only that it turns out it that a lot of the time it doesn’t. Or rather, that the consequences of it are externalized and invisible. So where does it go? Well first it increases prices to consumers in the case of minimum wage workers it maintains employment but it prevents rotation of new workers into the economy. And the question is, is that a net gain or a net loss for everyone? Well, it’s immoral to both conduct the test, and the consequences are immoral. But does that mean the those consequences are not empirically measurable and therefore whether the policy is net beneficial? That is what economists measure.

Secondly, if we think some good is achieved through raising the minimum wage, how can we accommodate the externality of lower rotation through the job pool? For example what if raising the minimum wage prevents least common denominator service economies? (Racing to the bottom). Is that something people prefer? In other words, would you rather have better service and higher unemployment (and greater subsidies for non-performers?)

The underlying question is this: if prices are increasing profits can we capture more of that increase for hourly employees than we do for management, owners, and investors (or creditors)?

So there is no difference between increasing the supply of money in order to temporarily increase consumer purchasing power at the expense of debt-holders, and increasing the minimum wage in order to capture a rise in prices for laborers at the expense of owners and investors.

Or stated even more simply: given that economies are always changing velocities, can we redirect changes in state between participants without ‘killing the goose’ (destroying the system of production).

Well the answer is a moral one, not a logical or empirical one.

And the reason to claim otherwise is to use the false pretense of ‘unscientific’ or ‘logical positivism’ or ‘a priori’ or ‘logical contradiction’ to create a straw man as a means of preventing investigation into the science of economic immorality: economic manipulation by the forcible involuntary transfer of property between individuals.

(Which is exactly what mises and rothbard were doing: shaming via straw man using obscurantism by overloading even well intended people with half truths that when fully expressed are false.)

That’s the question people ask with these issues. No one questions if it will increase unemployment. They question the limit before it increases negative unemployment. The same as taxation. No one questions that taxation will produce declining revenues. But empirically, what is the maximum taxation that they govt can achieve before that happens – and what are the consequences.

CLOSING

Now you probably have no idea how profound this bit of text is. And I suspect you could spend a few months integrating it into your thought process. But that’s in large part, the state of the art in epistemology.

THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 13:07:00 UTC

July 17, 2017
VERY CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON THE LIMITS OF RELIGION AND THE COMPETITION BETWE

VERY CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON THE LIMITS OF RELIGION AND THE COMPETITION BETWEEN FEELS AND REALZ.

The word “anthropomorphization” is an enlightenment term from the 1700’s that refers to the human psychological tendency to attribute human properties to non-human characters for the purpose of substituting human intent when causality is beyond the grasp of the speaker – or as a literary device to communicate general psychological intuitions through non-human characters through conflation with animal behaviors or extraordinary circumstances.

This term was chosen to refer to the general tendency of humans to produce fantasy stories for use as wisdom literature in the absence of a literature of causation (science) throughout history. This fantasy wisdom literature is easily explainable as the product of evolutionary chance, human reason’s need for causal explanation (‘fear of vacuum’), and human imagination’s ability to perform substitution (permutation).

Moreover, appealing to intuition requires little or no burden-of-reason, and the repeating narrative is the lowest cost means of training intuition available to human beings, and is available from childhood onward. Even better, narratives that train inexpensive and powerful intuition which can then serve as a substitute for expensive and error-prone reason that survive generations of application cause behaviors whose consequences are correspondent to complex reality despite the fact that it’s causes are non-correspodent to reality, thereby reducing the error of the individual and the group regardless of their individual abilities to reason. Unfortunately the cost of adaptation of such narrative knowledge, reinforced by networks of related and interdependent narratives, is extremely high in relation to the rate of change. So intuitionistic programming by such narratives declines in value with the rate of change in knowledge and circumstance. And many peoples have been degraded, defeated, or exterminated because they were unable to adapt to changes due to confrontation with Guns, Germs, Steel, accounting, literacy, contract, law, banking, mathematics, logic, history, and Science.

The operationally descriptive term anthropomorphization accurately describes the deflation of the technique by which we produce imaginary experiences, the sedative and euphoric chemical rewards of those imaginary experiences that invoke our submission to the pack response, the frequency with which those chemical rewards are available due to the low cost of chemical rewards for imaginary experiences, the sedative and euphoric effect of those chemical rewards, and the value in social phenomenon of associating sedative and euphoric effects with otherwise stressful persistent problems of minds capable of reason in complex problems our reason cannot solve and therefore bring to rest.

Furthermore, we are all conscious of our status, whether reproductive value, social value, economic(productie) value, and political value. To the point where the combination of neuroticism (worry), status value, and agency(ability to act to change state), in concert with our ability to temporarily fool (sedate, stimulate) ourselves through imaginary self-narration, can drive us to destructive behaviors as we desperately seek to preserve the sedative and euphoric values of these (false) narratives in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The experiences provided by fantasy fiction wisdom literature, its use in training intuition as a discount on cost of reason, it’s use in sedation and euphoria as stress reduction, and the discount provided by non-rational, intertemporally tested, methods of decidability, and the value of such decidability in coordinating social groups of widely distributed ages, and widely distributed intellectual abilities, with widely distributed personality traits, and widely distributed circumstances, was the reason for its widespread success in increasing the number of people coordinating their actions by the same criterial, even if the consequences were maladaptive to the point where these networks due to their stability and interconnection were highly resistant to new knowledge, and in many cases outright forbid new knowledge leading to poverty conquest and extermination.

One can experience the feelings of love, friendship, passion, touch color, smell, fear, and a host of combinations. One can experience drugs, theatre, mu And one an remember those experiences, and one can empathize with those experiences in others.

One can understand the causes of those experiences independent of their experiences, just as one can ‘feel’ the experiences independent of an understanding of the causes.

It is true that an understanding of causes limits the range of experiences. It is true that the value of experiences limits the conclusions we draw from the causes. But it is the competition between experience and causality, like the competition between imagination and reason, like the competition between literature and history, like the competition between reason and science, that prevents our development of addiction behavior and zealotry to defend it, and scientistic behavior and zealotry to defend it. And the method of decidability we can use for both limits is ‘truth’.

For this reason we can separate good ‘religions’ from evil ‘religions’. And that line of demarcation is simple: (a) imagination rather than action, (b) deflation (competition) vs monopoly: fictionalism (conflation) rather than competition between true and wise, and advise and command, and history and myth. We can ‘rank’ better religions and worse religions by the same means.

And so it is profoundly clarifying, to both know and Feel, such that we form a competition between knowing and feeling, if for no other reason than to prevent of harm. And specifically, to prevent the harm of the abrahamic deceits, which succeed by self induced drug addictions through the ritualistic production of endorphins.

So there is a vast difference between between a monopoly of reason which burdens the less able and empowers the able, and a monopoly of feelings which empower the less able, and burden the able – and the whole civilization.

The compromise position – the compatible position – between reason and feeling, is that of the use of action rituals, and public rituals, and public festivals, to provide the beneficial returns of mindfulness, the social returns of trust and calculability, and the political benefits of organizing a polity by the same strategy, traditions, norms, and laws.

This is very close the the final word on limits of religion.

(Now, you might or might notice that I restated your criticism on a point by point and nearly paragraph by paragraph basis. or you might not. But it will be very difficult to defeat this analysis. )

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 12:05:00 UTC

June 30, 2017
WHAT ARE THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ‘PROPERTARIANISM’? POSITIONING: PROPERTARIANISM

WHAT ARE THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ‘PROPERTARIANISM’?

POSITIONING: PROPERTARIANISM IS LARGE. AS LARGE AS MARXISM.

Propertarianism is a large program – a complete system – in which we have attempted to unite science, philosophy, morality, law, economics, and evolutionary biology(and war).

SIMPLIFIED:

The west, for historical reasons, both genetic, environmental, economic, and cultural, developed truth and truth telling producing trust and rapid adaptability to change, that like their military tactics allowed smaller and poorer numbers to defeat larger and wealthier numbers by maneuver.

Using truth, meritocratic egalitarianism (class equality), sovereignty, common law, and jury, the west produced a market order of governance. And by consequence ‘markets in everything’ that continued the strategy of adaptation.

And that just as wealth made possible by empires made migration of undomesticated underclasses mobile in the early bronze age, and in the ancient iron age, that colonialism and industrialization made underclasses mobile in the modern age.

But, while violence has decreased, we have merely translated the visible predation of violence for the less visible predation of pervasive fraud.

So, while we can never know that something is true or perfect, we can however, very systematically, perform all known due diligence against falsehood and deceit as rigorously as we perform mathematics.

Testimonialism expands the scientific method to provide a means of performing sufficient due diligence that one can warranty that his speech is not false.

By using Testimonialism we can extend the demand for due diligence we require in products and services to that of public speech (especially for money, and especially regarding politics), and we can reverse the industrialization of lying that has been made possible by our failure to regulate the industrialization of information and opinion that we call financialization, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-historicism (supernaturalism), propaganda, and in particular, marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and political correctness and outright lying in public.

In other words, we can impose warranty of due diligence upon everyone for public, published (amplified, distributed) speech. And we can end, in this era the industrialization of lying.

And with that single innovation we can reform and restore western civilization and save ourselves from a second dark age by the second abrahamic conquest of western civilization.

THE PHILOSOPHY : SIGNIFICANT TOPICS

While propertarianism serves as an anti-philosophy system of thought, we rely upon the traditional hierarchy of categories:

METAPHYSICS

1 – TIME: our first resource is time. our development of action, sentience, intelligence, cooperation, division of labor, writing, narrative, numbers, money, accounting, reason, law and science serves to produce increasing returns on time. When we increase our numbers in physical space we decrease opportunity costs (time). When we increase incremental suppression of parasitism and free riding, we decrease transaction costs (time). trades, money, savings, store time – time to trade with others.

PSYCHOLOGY

2 – ACQUISITIONISM: all behavior is reducible to the incentive to acquire interests. we can enumerate those categories of interests we seek to acquire. we remember those things we have invested in as costs, and defend those costs. (our complex interests some of which are our possessions )

We provide a list of categories that explain the sum total of what people seek to acquire an ‘interest’ in.

3 – PROPERTARIANISM: We can empathize with intent and therefore cooperate. We can remember, so we can exchange cooperation over time, as well as forgo cooperation if it’s irreciprocal. Cooperation is so much more productive than individual action that it is an un-substitutable good. So preservation of incentive to cooperate requires profitable(productive) reciprocity.

That which we have borne costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs on the interests of others does not violate reciprocity. All non-criminal/criminal, unethical/ethical, and moral/immoral behavior can be reduced to statements of reciprocity.

We

We reduce most questions to “at this moment, what is a person attempting to acquire?” And then “how reciprocal(moral) or ir-reciprocal(immoral) is his action?”

EPISTEMOLOGY

4 – TESTIMONIALISM: humans evolved to negotiate. Negotiate given three options: avoidance, conflict, or cooperation. We did not evolve to speak truthfully, but pragmatically.

However, we can learn to speak truthfully just as we can learn to read using symbols, write using symbols, grammar, and vocabulary, do arithmetic and mathematics answer logical questions, and write computer software.

The reason being, that just as there are only so many existential dimensions to the universe (point, line, space, geometry, change (time/space)), there there are only so many actionable dimensions to the universe (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, moral, and scope-completeness).

Just as we can use different levels of mathematics to test our theories (count, arithmetic, accounting, ratios (‘math’), geometry and trigonometry, calculus, and algebraic geometry), we can we can test each of those actionable dimensions of reality.

Just as it is very difficult for a statement of constant relations in mathematics to be false if it meets all the necessary dimensional criteria, it is very difficult for a statement of truth in ordinary language to be false if it meets all the necessary dimensions of criteria.

As such, while it is almost impossible to know if we speak truth proper – meaning, the most informationally parsimonious description possible – we can however warranty we have done all available due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lies.

So while it does take some practice to meet these criteria, the only novel dimension is the ‘operational’, which requires a very limited grammar.

But if we use this grammar it is literally almost impossible to err, just as it is nearly impossible to write a program that will run and not err.

Just as it is nearly impossible to construct certain proofs and still err.

To a significant degree it is possible to construct a language, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of truthful speech: Testimonialism.

5 – THE COMPETITION BETWEEN VIA-POSITIVA, VIA-NEGATIVA

5 – VIA-POSITIVA MORAL JUSTIFICATION, VIA POSITIVA LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, AND VIA-NEGATIVA TESTIMONIALISM

5 – TRANSFORMATION OF APRIORISM TO SCIENTIFIC TERMS

ETHICS

5 – NATURAL LAW AND COMMON LAW (incremental suppression): There is only one law of universal morality, and that is the law of reciprocity. It is possible to construct all laws as derivations of this one law of reciprocity, using the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimonial speech, producing strictly constructed original intent and textualism. If all law is written as such it is closed to interpretation on one hand, and false, dishonest, immoral, insufficient, and incomplete laws can be identified and sunset by competitive argument.

This ends judicial activism and circumvention of the law on one hand, and limits the construction of legislation (contracts of the commons) to that which does not violate reciprocity.

Conversely, it is possible for judges to discover new applications of the natural law of reciprocity – whether they start from the history of judgements (common law) or they start from pre-calculated judgements (canon law), or a combination of the two (common law of judgements on top of canon law).

And for this reason, innovations in free riding, parasitism, and predation can be eradicated and added to the legal canon as soon as the first case is adjudicated.

Moreover, the legislation can be falsified and removed, court findings can be falsified and removed.

6 – TRUTHFUL SPEECH: Once we can test for due diligence in truthful speech, we can counter-act the media revolution’s industrialization of lying (academy, state, and media-advertising), by extending the demand for warranty of due diligence in products and services to a demand for warranty of due diligence in public speech, and grant universal standing to all citizens in defense of the ‘informational commons’.

This means that anyone will be able to sue anyone for speech that fails the tests of due diligence. While this will not need to apply to private speech, it means that business, finance, media, academy, and state can no longer use the power of mass communications to lie and deceive the people. (This may sound strange until you have some experience with it, but it works.

Now, if you have some idea of the difference in mankind caused by the scientific revolution in the physical sciences, you might be able to imagine the vast improvement in our lives by the scientific revolution in the social and information sciences.

Imagine if no organization could use media to lie to you. Imagine how consumer protections would evolve. Imagine how politicians and professors would have to speak to us.

We cannot know what is true, but we can know what is false.

And that is enough.

SOCIOLOGY

9 – INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF PERCEPTION : Intertemporal Division of Reproductive Perception Knowledge Labor and Advocacy: The difference between the feminine (short term), libertarian (medium term) and conservative (long term) moral biases constitutes an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

The way we ‘calculate’ what is ‘good’ is through voluntary exchanges: cooperation. So the fact that we have different biases provides necessary and advantageous specializations, and our principal problem then is providing ‘markets’ by which we can cooperate and ‘calculate’ group needs through constant exchanges.

By choice of individual sovereignty, we limit ourselves to natural law. By the choice of natural law we limit ourselves to markets in everything. By limiting ourselves to markets in everything we produce markets for association, cooperation, mating and reproduction, production commerce and trade, the production of commons (government), and the production of polities (Armies and Territories and Rule).

10 – CLASSES: Propertarian Class Analysis: there are only three methods of coercion: force, gossip, and remuneration. Masculine force, libertarian trade, and feminine gossip, rallying, and shaming(exclusion from opportunity).

Instead of one class hierarchy there are three. Societies are dominated by some arrangement of these three methods of coercion (Military and law, finance and commerce, priesthood and public intellectuals). Each fights for power, with the core of the population shifting under who best serves them, while at the same time protecting them from outside competition.

Within those classes we see genetic, social, and economic classes. Genetic roughly reflecting reproductive desirability. Social roughly reflecting manners, norms, and education, and economic/political reflecting achievements.

For all intents and purposes, with wide individual variation, physical attractiveness (which yes, is a universal), fitness, IQ, and personality, serve as a rough indicator of class.

For all intents and purposes, intelligence serves as a personality trait – and perhaps the dominant personality trait.

For all intents and purposes, personality and physique require exercise in order to produce individual fitness. (This being the primary failure of the 20th century – personality training. )

POLITICS

7 – TRANSACTION COST EVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT

( undone )

8 – MARKET GOVERNMENT. There is no reason for monopoly (majoritarianism) in the production of commons: once all legislation must satisfy the natural law of reciprocity, written testimonially, and therefore truthfully, we can construct trades between the interests (classes), and all ‘legislation’ can ascend as long as it survives the tests of natural law of reciprocity that is constructed testimonially. Likewise we can agree upon norms without imposing norms. So we can ascend agreements without ascending disagreements. As such we can change from monopoly allocation of proceeds of the commons (profits/taxes) to equidistributed allocation of proceeds (everyone votes their share of the pot), or progressive allocation of proceeds (everyone votes their contribution to the pot), and eliminate representatives.

This makes it extremely difficult to engage in corruption since the possibility of lobbying a politician is eliminated, and the cost of lobbying the population is prohibitive, plus the requirement for truthful speech and strict construction places heavy burdens political proposals.

Ending monopoly means that people can produce the commons they choose to fund rather than produce those commons that they don’t choose to fund.

This eliminates the ability of politicians to subvert the population as has been done during the 20th century.

Meanwhile it makes it almost impossible for groups of citizens to circumvent the natural law.

9 – DEFINANCIALIZATION: Definancialization of the Financial System. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).

By nationalizing Mastercard, and issuing one every LEGAL AND FULLY INTEGRATED citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the oney supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.

Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.

This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors.

There will be no other way to profit than the Silicon Valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.

Financialism will be destroyed forever.

10 – A NEW CONSTITUTION: A New Constitution of Natural Law – A constitution of natural law that completes the anglo law tradition and the Jeffersonian/Adams experiment by providing means of constructing and preserving natural law and market government.

GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

11 – RACE: Race and Group differences are attributable almost entirely to the local ability to engage in Neotonic reproduction thereby reducing the depth of physical maturity and effectively preserving youthfulness – and therefore aggression and impulsivity PLUS the ability to cull the lower classes.

Europeans aggressively culled the lower classes for almost 1000 years, as did the chinese and japanese, both through manorialism and aggressive hanging.

Between Neotonic reproduction and culling of the underclasses some groups are ‘more evolved’ than others.

However, this means that almost all groups can ‘domesticate their populations and develop advanced societies if they are able to use policy to reduce underclass rates of reproduction below the replacement level.

12 – RESERVOIR: Genetic Reservoir: because we can adapt very rapidly by reproductive selection for different environments, different political hierarchies, and different gender traits, humans can adapt to nearly any circumstance within a few generations by modifying little more than status associated with particular traits.

So our current gene pools provide a deep reservoir of reproductive adaptability.

THE CYCLE OF WORLD HISTORY: TRUTH VS LIES

13 – HISTORICAL CONTEXT – HISTORY OF IDEAS: While the scientific re-enlightenemnt (British Empirical Enlightenment) restored much of the greco-roman enlightenment, that due to particular catastrophes that were a product of the european civil war (world wars to contain germany unwisely), the innovations of the calculus (relative change) we saw propagated to other fields in the combination of Darwinian(biology,sociology), Social Science (Spencer, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim) Mengerian (economics), Mathematics (Poincare, Hilbert, Bridgman), and Law( Hayek and the originalist/textualist/stcrict-constructionists) were truncated except for the newly emergent field of computer science ( Boole, Babbage, Turing ), and the physical sciences.

In other words, just as Abrahamism (zoroastrianism,judaism, christianity, islam) reversed the advances of the ancient world through immigration, writing, and supernatural fictionalism, Abrahamism in the form of Rousseau and the postmodernists in france, kant and the phenomenologists in germany, and the horde of pseudosciences in judaism (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School) and the protestant feminists in america, all used the economic and territorial mobility of the underclasses, and the new methods of media (‘counter-art’, advertising, propaganda, print, radio, television, and movies), to reverse the re-enlightenment.

CLOSING – THE SECRET TO THE WEST

14 – THE WEST: The secret to western civilization, besides being a small, relatively poor population on the edge of the bronze age, is that by the choice of voluntary militia, military tactics of maneuver requiring contractualism, and heroic sovereignty (ownership of gains), we necessitated natural law, and markets in everything. And as a consequence the west was not first, but in every era we were fastest. In other words, truth, promise(contract), natural law, and jury allow us to adapt faster than every other known method of human cooperation.

Innovation > Heroism(Risk) > Meritocracy > Sovereignty > Natural Law > Markets in Everything > The Most Rapid Adaptation Possible > The best evolutionary strategy possible.

15 – PROPERTARIANISM PROVIDES THE RESTORATION : With Propertarianism (a name which may or may not be appropriate), we have restored and completed the re-enlightenment, and come as close as we can to restoring western civilization’s ancient uniqueness – expressed in roman ritual and mythical religion, stoic and epicurean philosophy, scientific technology, and empirical law, and reason for our extraordinary success in the ancient and modern worlds. As well as explained the causes and consequences of the dark ages, and the competing ‘counter-enlightenments’ throughout time, as a competition between truth producing eugenic evolution of the homogenous european west and eastern Han china, and falsehood producing dysgenic devolution of the heterogeneous tribal peoples in between.

I hope those ideas help you in distilling the program down substantially. THere are another dozen that are important but these are the most significant.

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 16:46:00 UTC

June 25, 2017
THE LIMITS OF THE MONOMYTH – ENDING DECEIT BY MYTHOS BY ENDING ABRAHAMISM (more

THE LIMITS OF THE MONOMYTH – ENDING DECEIT BY MYTHOS BY ENDING ABRAHAMISM

(more on extending – or limiting – Peterson’s thesis)

Whereas:

It is very hard to create a fiction (myth) that fails to ‘ring true’ because it makes use of the Monomyth, Limited Plots, the Archetypes, and the Virtues – and these categories reflect the methods of acquisition of methods of transcendence available to our psychology.

It is very easy to create fictions in western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by (a) the use of hyperbole (illustration by magnification), while avoiding idealism and supernaturalism, (b) the only difference between men, heroes, demigods, and gods, is the degree of their mortality or immortality, and the degree of hyperbolic exaggeration of their abilities, (c) men, heroes, demigods, and gods, are all bound by the forces of nature (d) the gods and demigods are flawed and capricious members of extended families (e) men, heroes and demigods can defeat the flaws and capriciousness of the gods, demigods, the heroes of our enemies, and our enemies by means of courage, wit, discipline, and sacrifice – “man can defeat evil men, the god and nature” (e)

It is very easy to create fictions that are incompatible with western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by means of inserting deceptions in the form of (a)idealism, (b)supernaturalism, (c)the power of gods over the forces of nature (d) contriving man’s inability to defeat gods (e) misrepresenting the will and intention of gods (f) demanding submission to gods, (g) directing protagonists to submit to this world of the gods rather than to transform it for the betterment of man. (h) directing we circumvent the costs of changing the world for the better because of its hopelessness.

It is very easy to create fictions that are critical of western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy, by lionizing protagonists that defeat it. (marxist, and postmodern myths and pseudo-histories)

It is very easy to create many trivial ‘essays’ rather than narratives outside of the monomyth in order to communicate experiences not lessons – as a means of criticizing the ‘meaningful’ monomyths and its Transcendence. (Postmodern literature)

It is all too easy to create pseudoscience – Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor – (marxists), by overloading the knowledge and reasoning of people thereby forcing appeal to intuition rather than reason.

It is all too easy to create pseudo-rationlism (pretense of philosophy) by loading, framing, overloading the rather limited abilities of people to reason thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy (reason).

It is all too easy to outright lie and chant propaganda (political correctness), thereby overloading their ability, desire, and NEED to reason, thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy rather than simply propaganda, falsehood, and lie.

It is all too easy for humans to fall prey to comforting lies, just as they fall prey to alcohol and drugs and gambling and a hundred other destructive vices. And that some myths *are designed precisely to do that*. After all, what is the difference between pedagogical myth for the purpose of transcendence so that one can succeed in the ‘market’ we call reality, and deceptive myth for the purpose of containment so that one can merely survive in a reality absent a market for transcendence because it is either impossible or one has been deluded that it is not desirable?

Therefore:

(1) the monomyth/archetype/plot/virtue structure is not enough to teach the virtues because it is not enough to defend against entrapment in deceit that counters the virtues. We can teach with the myths, but we can also DECEIVE with the myths. Because both teaching and deception require the use of ‘suggestion’ which provokes free association, which results in meaning. So we can either create true and good or false and bad meaning.

(2) the *limits of myths* are just as necessary as the contents of those myths. In particular there is a vast difference between history, fiction, hyperbolic myth, idealism and supernaturalism. And a vast difference between submission and transcendence through action. So the myths constructed from the monomyth architecture can use good or bad virtues, good or bad limits, and good or bad methods of discourse. The good: historical, fictional, and hyperbolic, or the bad: ideal and supernatural and fictionalism.

(3) myths can be used to harm mankind – and abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity and islam have been used to harm mankind. In the case of judaism, the most literate people contributed nothing until converted to Aristotelianism; the christian dark ages were not exited until the reassertion of aristotelianism, and islam destroyed four ancient civilizations during their period of expansion, caused the majority of the european dark age, caused more death than the black plagues, and has caused ignorance, dysgenia, and poverty wherever it has gone. The the german abrahamists tried kantian idealism (pseudo-rationalism), the Jewish abrahamists tried pseudoscience via marx, freud and boaz; the french abrahamists tried postmodernism(anti reason, anti-logic, anti-truth, anti-science), and now the islamists have doubled-down on fundamentalism (anti-reason), raiding (terrorism), and dysgenia (overpopulation), and invasion (immigration) and propaganda (conversion).

Summation:

Reality is difficult. The universe is hostile to us. Other peoples are hostile to us. the west, the iranian branch, and the vedic branch created aristocracy

The western group evolutionary strategy is profoundly expensive. We must act heroically. We must suppress our impulses. We must speak the truth regardless of its costs to the dominance hierarchy. We must participate in a militia. We can only gain the franchise through demonstrated sacrifice for the polity.

The enemy of Aristocracy (meritocracy, truth, heroism, eugenics, excellence) is abrahamism (equality, dysgenia, falsehood, submission, subsistence).

This battle has raged at least since 500bc. Arguably it has raged since the invention of fictionalism by Zoroaster: Zoroaster > Abrahamism > Judaism > the heresy of christianity > The heresy of Islam > the french, german, jewish and russian counter-enlightenments.

REMEDY

Today we will either end the second conquest of the west by waves of abrahamism, using a demand for (scientific) truth, goodness(heroism), and beauty(excellence), or we will collapse again into a dark age from which man may never recover – abrahamism is a desirable cancer of the mind, just as much as alcohol and opiates and religions are a desirable cancer of the mind.

Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide a method for the value neutral, loading neutral, framing neutral, analysis of the truth and falsehood, good and bad, of all human expression – including that of the Myths: Monomyth > Plots > Archetypes > and Virtues.

End abrahamism, and end idealism, and require truth in matters of politics and thereby limit all actions and speech to fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfers of goods, services, and information, free of imposition by externality of costs upon the investments of others.

It’s trivial. But we must abandon convenient habitual lies just as we have abandoned the convenience of fraud, the convenience of theft, and the convenience of violence, and the convenience of murder.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:25:00 UTC

June 23, 2017
THE MONOMYTH, ITS LIMITS, AND THE ENDING OF ABRAHAMISM It is very hard to create

THE MONOMYTH, ITS LIMITS, AND THE ENDING OF ABRAHAMISM

It is very hard to create a fiction (myth) that fails to ‘ring true’ because it makes use of the Monomyth, Limited Plots, the Archetypes, and the Virtues – and these categories reflect the methods of acquisition of methods of transcendence available to our psychology.

It is very easy to create fictions in western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by (a) the use of hyperbole (illustration by magnification), while avoiding idealism and supernaturalism, (b) the only difference between men, heroes, demigods, and gods, is the degree of their mortality or immortality, and the degree of hyperbolic exaggeration of their abilities, (c) men, heroes, demigods, and gods, are all bound by the forces of nature (d) the gods and demigods are flawed and capricious members of extended families (e) men, heroes and demigods can defeat the flaws and capriciousness of the gods, demigods, the heroes of our enemies, and our enemies by means of courage, wit, discipline, and sacrifice – “man can defeat evil men, the god and nature” (e)

It is very easy to create fictions that are incompatible with western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by means of inserting deceptions in the form of (a)idealism, (b)supernaturalism, (c)the power of gods over the forces of nature (d) contriving man’s inability to defeat gods (e) misrepresenting the will and intention of gods (f) demanding submission to gods, (g) directing protagonists to submit to this world of the gods rather than to transform it for the betterment of man. (h) directing we circumvent the costs of changing the world for the better because of its hopelessness.

It is very easy to create fictions that are critical of western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy, by lionizing protagonists that defeat it. (marxist, and postmodern myths and pseudo-histories)

It is very easy to create many trivial ‘essays’ rather than narratives outside of the monomyth in order to communicate experiences not lessons – as a means of criticizing the ‘meaningful’ monomyths and its Transcendence. (Postmodern literature)

It is all too easy to create pseudoscience – Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor – (marxists), by overloading the knowledge and reasoning of people thereby forcing appeal to intuition rather than reason.

It is all too easy to create pseudo-rationlism (pretense of philosophy) by loading, framing, overloading the rather limited abilities of people to reason thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy (reason).

It is all too easy to outright lie and chant propaganda (political correctness), thereby overloading their ability, desire, and NEED to reason, thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy rather than simply propaganda, falsehood, and lie.

It is all too easy for humans to fall prey to comforting lies, just as they fall prey to alcohol and drugs and gambling and a hundred other destructive vices. And that some myths *are designed precisely to do that*. After all, what is the difference between pedagogical myth for the purpose of transcendence so that one can succeed in the ‘market’ we call reality, and deceptive myth for the purpose of containment so that one can merely survive in a reality absent a market for transcendence because it is either impossible or one has been deluded that it is not desirable?

THEREFORE

(1) the monomyth/archetype/plot/virtue structure is not enough to teach the virtues because it is not enough to defend against entrapment in deceit that counters the virtues. We can teach with the myths, but we can also DECEIVE with the myths. Because both teaching and deception require the use of ‘suggestion’ which provokes free association, which results in meaning. So we can either create true and good or false and bad meaning.

(2) the *limits of myths* are just as necessary as the contents of those myths. In particular there is a vast difference between history, fiction, hyperbolic myth, idealism and supernaturalism. And a vast difference between submission and transcendence through action. So the myths constructed from the monomyth architecture can use good or bad virtues, good or bad limits, and good or bad methods of discourse. The good: historical, fictional, and hyperbolic, or the bad: ideal and supernatural and fictionalism.

(3) myths can be used to harm mankind – and abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity and islam have been used to harm mankind. In the case of judaism, the most literate people contributed nothing until converted to Aristotelianism; the christian dark ages were not exited until the reassertion of aristotelianism, and islam destroyed four ancient civilizations during their period of expansion, caused the majority of the european dark age, caused more death than the black plagues, and has caused ignorance, dysgenia, and poverty wherever it has gone. The the german abrahamists tried kantian idealism (pseudo-rationalism), the Jewish abrahamists tried pseudoscience via marx, freud and boaz; the french abrahamists tried postmodernism(anti reason, anti-logic, anti-truth, anti-science), and now the islamists have doubled-down on fundamentalism (anti-reason), raiding (terrorism), and dysgenia (overpopulation), and invasion (immigration) and propaganda (conversion).

SUMMATION

Reality is difficult. The universe is hostile to us. Other peoples are hostile to us. the west, the iranian branch, and the vedic branch created aristocracy

The western group evolutionary strategy is profoundly expensive. We must act heroically. We must suppress our impulses. We must speak the truth regardless of its costs to the dominance hierarchy. We must participate in a militia. We can only gain the franchise through demonstrated sacrifice for the polity.

The enemy of Aristocracy (meritocracy, truth, heroism, eugenics, excellence) is abrahamism (equality, dysgenia, falsehood, submission, subsistence).

This battle has raged at least since 500bc. Arguably it has raged since the invention of fictionalism by Zoroaster: Zoroaster > Abrahamism > Judaism > the heresy of christianity > The heresy of Islam > the french, german, jewish and russian counter-enlightenments.

REMEDY

Today we will either end the second conquest of the west by waves of abrahamism, using a demand for (scientific) truth, goodness(heroism), and beauty(excellence), or we will collapse again into a dark age from which man may never recover – abrahamism is a desirable cancer of the mind, just as much as alcohol and opiates and religions are a desirable cancer of the mind.

Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide a method for the value neutral, loading neutral, framing neutral, analysis of the truth and falsehood, good and bad, of all human expression – including that of the Myths: Monomyth > Plots > Archetypes > and Virtues.

End abrahamism, and end idealism, and require truth in matters of politics and thereby limit all actions and speech to fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfers of goods, services, and information, free of imposition by externality of costs upon the investments of others.

It’s trivial. But we must abandon convenient habitual lies just as we have abandoned the convenience of fraud, the convenience of theft, and the convenience of violence, and the convenience of murder.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:21:00 UTC

June 23, 2017