THIS IS ALL NORMIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND: PROPERTARIANISM WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES BETTER AND FAST – NOT BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAW IT MAKES POSSIBLE.
Normal people are not students of, or interested in, nor necessarily capable of conceiving the world via the tools of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can.
If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand.
Because the work consists largely of:
(a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law.
(b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge).
(c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t.
(d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens),
(e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes.
That’s it.
That’s what they have to understand.
The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible.
In taking ruthlessness (competition unhindered by forbearance) off the table we have allowed “I kill you and take your stuff” to be replaced with “I outvote you and take your stuff”.
It is the same threat of violence underpinning both iterations, but the latter removes the limit of direct risk to the taker.
We need to be ruthless enough to restore limits to the taker, no matter how the taker fills in the blank within the statement “I ________ you and take you stuff”.
What the parasite fills the blank with (guilt, shame, lies, demographics, etc…), ruthlessness must match.
In short – We need to say ‘No” and ruthlessly mean it.
(no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)
—-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut
Christian,
Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done.
This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge.
Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism.
To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them.
I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum.
This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy)
This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind.
And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale).
And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity).
This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international.
As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions.
So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false.
So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning.
I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct.
—“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—
Any time.
—“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—
I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation).
In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years.
So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological),
Propertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge.
Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument).
That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics.
Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others.
This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud.
This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.
All inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.
—“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf
… and ….
—“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf
—“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey
—“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf
1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in…
2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness.
3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources.
4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism.
5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error.
Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet.
(The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.)
I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.
(FB Timestamp)
THE LIMIT OF COMMERCIAL SELF INTEREST
RE: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Quora, Stack Overflow, Medium, and all the rest of the ‘censors’….
[T]he secret to the Success of the West in both the Ancient and Modern worlds, is the speaking of uncomfortable truths, no matter the cost, and regardless of impact on the competence, self image, status, and dominance hierarchies.
Honor instead of Face.
Duty instead of Security.
Reciprocity instead of Proportionality
Order instead of Equality.
Truth, Beauty, and Goodness instead of Harmony.
Heroism vs Obedience
Aristocracy of Everyone vs Peasantry of Everyone.
It is this ‘disregard’ for ‘face’ that produced all of western civilization’s excellences: truth, jury, rule of law, reason, empiricism, science, technology, medicine, markets, and the fastest adaptation of culture, economy, law, and polity to circumstance that is possible for mankind.
By appealing to a world commercial market, where “Truth No Matter The Consequences” is not only unknown but anti social, and in many cases unethical, immoral, and highly offensive, we have let into our great civilization the antithesis of what made it great:
Paying the price of offense to produce all that flows from telling the truth – from opinion, to testimony, to scientific fact.
These companies, out of commercial self interest, are spending down the accumulated normative, cultural, traditional, intellectual, and institutional capital that we carefully accumulated over 3500 years of European evolution and development.
The most intolerant wins. One can be tolerant of Truth and Opinion and create western civilization. Or one can be intolerant of Truth, and Opinion and reverse western civilization.
What we are seeing is yet another invasion of intolerance, (first judaism and christianity), and now Judaism (Separatist Sophism), Postmodernism (Secular Christian Sophism), and Islam(Supernatural Conquest Sophism).
Every single act of suppression of dissent against those who take offense is a THEFT of the capital of western civilization. In economic terms this is called: The Privatization of Public Capital – what we call ‘The Commons”.
As I undrestand the situation, all of these companies are guilty of not only of (a) sedition, (b) conspiracy (c) massive privatization of the commons for commercial self interest, (d) use of proceeds and platform to coerce the state via the public to continue this privatization of the commons.
This is theft. Period. Plan and simple. And sedition as well.
October 29th, 2018 6:41 PM
YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST.
[A]ll inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.
—“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf
… and ….
—“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf
—“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey
—“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf
1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in…
(a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction)
-OR-
(b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) ,
-BY-
non-argument (disapproval, avoidance),
-VERSUS-
(c) argument (measurements, decidability),
… in writing
2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness.
3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources.
4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism.
5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error.
Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet.
(The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.)
I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.
(FB Timestamp)
THE LIMIT OF COMMERCIAL SELF INTEREST
RE: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Quora, Stack Overflow, Medium, and all the rest of the ‘censors’….
[T]he secret to the Success of the West in both the Ancient and Modern worlds, is the speaking of uncomfortable truths, no matter the cost, and regardless of impact on the competence, self image, status, and dominance hierarchies.
Honor instead of Face.
Duty instead of Security.
Reciprocity instead of Proportionality
Order instead of Equality.
Truth, Beauty, and Goodness instead of Harmony.
Heroism vs Obedience
Aristocracy of Everyone vs Peasantry of Everyone.
It is this ‘disregard’ for ‘face’ that produced all of western civilization’s excellences: truth, jury, rule of law, reason, empiricism, science, technology, medicine, markets, and the fastest adaptation of culture, economy, law, and polity to circumstance that is possible for mankind.
By appealing to a world commercial market, where “Truth No Matter The Consequences” is not only unknown but anti social, and in many cases unethical, immoral, and highly offensive, we have let into our great civilization the antithesis of what made it great:
Paying the price of offense to produce all that flows from telling the truth – from opinion, to testimony, to scientific fact.
These companies, out of commercial self interest, are spending down the accumulated normative, cultural, traditional, intellectual, and institutional capital that we carefully accumulated over 3500 years of European evolution and development.
The most intolerant wins. One can be tolerant of Truth and Opinion and create western civilization. Or one can be intolerant of Truth, and Opinion and reverse western civilization.
What we are seeing is yet another invasion of intolerance, (first judaism and christianity), and now Judaism (Separatist Sophism), Postmodernism (Secular Christian Sophism), and Islam(Supernatural Conquest Sophism).
Every single act of suppression of dissent against those who take offense is a THEFT of the capital of western civilization. In economic terms this is called: The Privatization of Public Capital – what we call ‘The Commons”.
As I undrestand the situation, all of these companies are guilty of not only of (a) sedition, (b) conspiracy (c) massive privatization of the commons for commercial self interest, (d) use of proceeds and platform to coerce the state via the public to continue this privatization of the commons.
This is theft. Period. Plan and simple. And sedition as well.
RE: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Quora, Stack Overflow, Medium, and all the rest of the ‘censors’….
The secret to the Success of the West in both the Ancient and Modern worlds, is the speaking of uncomfortable truths, no matter the cost, and regardless of impact on the competence, self image, status, and dominance hierarchies.
– Honor instead of Face.
– Duty instead of Security.
– Reciprocity instead of Proportionality
– Order instead of Equality.
– Truth, Beauty, and Goodness instead of Harmony.
– Heroism vs Obedience
– Aristocracy of Everyone vs Peasantry of Everyone.
It is this ‘disregard’ for ‘face’ that produced all of western civilization’s excellences: truth, jury, rule of law, reason, empiricism, science, technology, medicine, markets, and the fastest adaptation of culture, economy, law, and polity to circumstance that is possible for mankind.
By appealing to a world commercial market, where “Truth No Matter The Consequences” is not only unknown but anti social, and in many cases unethical, immoral, and highly offensive, we have let into our great civilization the antithesis of what made it great:
Paying the price of offense to produce all that flows from telling the truth – from opinion, to testimony, to scientific fact.
These companies, out of commercial self interest, are spending down the accumulated normative, cultural, traditional, intellectual, and institutional capital that we carefully accumulated over 3500 years of European evolution and development.
The most intolerant wins. One can be tolerant of Truth and Opinion and create western civilization. Or one can be intolerant of Truth, and Opinion and reverse western civilization.
What we are seeing is yet another invasion of intolerance, (first judaism and christianity), and now Judaism (Separatist Sophism), Postmodernism (Secular Christian Sophism), and Islam(Supernatural Conquest Sophism).
Every single act of suppression of dissent against those who take offense is a THEFT of the capital of western civilization. In economic terms this is called: The Privatization of Public Capital – what we call ‘The Commons”.
As I undrestand the situation, all of these companies are guilty of not only of (a) sedition, (b) conspiracy (c) massive privatization of the commons for commercial self interest, (d) use of proceeds and platform to coerce the state via the public to continue this privatization of the commons.
This is theft. Period. Plan and simple. And sedition as well.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45119279_10156741213577264_2199016087251582976_o_10156741213572264.jpg —“You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech”— Andrew Torba, CEO, Gab.comAndrey SokoloffI wasn’t using gab much before… will now. Also tired of 30 day band for minor ”violations.”Oct 29, 2018, 12:11 PMJeff UrizenTrump should switch to gabOct 29, 2018, 12:11 PMBernard HoltPretty sure Gab is downOct 29, 2018, 12:31 PMCurt Doolittlethis is the current homepage. they will be up shortlyOct 29, 2018, 12:40 PMRoy BlackheartAre you going to be on GAB when it comes back up?Oct 29, 2018, 12:47 PMCurt Doolittlei have an account yesOct 29, 2018, 12:49 PMVincenzo LaSalaVerified nobodies. Classic.Oct 29, 2018, 1:46 PMMiles KeenanGoing gabOct 29, 2018, 1:52 PMRafael AureliusIf only there were some kind of censorship resistant payment method that anyone in the world could use to pay for Gab.Oct 29, 2018, 2:44 PMJean LeonardI signed up last night, but I probably don’t have time for it.Oct 29, 2018, 4:11 PMBen HartselleAndrew is copeposting hereOct 29, 2018, 8:07 PMBen HartselleYa but even if they used it, the problem would be getting it into and out of fiat to pay employees, vendors, etc.
It’s the choke points of ed entry and exit into the banking system.
I always figured a major use case for crypto would be freedom from government interference, not an oppressive corporate theocracy.
20012 libertarian me BTFOOct 29, 2018, 8:18 PMCurt Doolittlelink?Oct 29, 2018, 8:30 PMBen HartselleI mean that Andrew’s above post is probaby copeposting. Daily Stormer went through all this before, they broke completely new ground in getting censored, and were reduced to publishing on TOR periodically while Weev worked out solution after solution.
If the eye of Sauron/big tech gets focused on you, it’s VERY difficult to continually come up with constant workarounds and maintain your business.
If DS wasn’t essentially one publisher, a writing staff and one of the world’s top security researchers doing pro-bono work for the site full-time, they’d still be permanently off the Internet.
If weev (ironically banned from Gab) and AA don’t see a long term solution after working on it for a year, and one of /ourguys/ trying to BUY A BANK to build a new payment processor with $100,000,000 and stopped from doing so, we’re running out of options within the current Internet ecosystem.
But by all means, remove all other options for us to exert our will and spread our ideas.Oct 29, 2018, 8:52 PMMichael KabanoffWould make sense. Lure all the ‘extremists’ to one site where they are easier to monitorOct 30, 2018, 1:39 AMDougium RingThat’s because the transition hasn’t happened yet. The whole point of crypto is to move beyond the necessity of fiatOct 30, 2018, 3:27 AMJim LeisWe expect this shit from the left. But it’s the libertarians who’s heads should be spinning while they argue that every private company has the right to deplatform Gab.Oct 30, 2018, 7:44 AMCurt Doolittle^ Never happen. Fiat = Shares in the Economy. What *WILL* happen is multiple fiat currencies for the multiple purposes. This will change economics dramatically. If necessary the states will crush competing currencies as otherwise they cannot respond to war and shock.Oct 30, 2018, 9:37 AMDougium RingProof of work and proof of stake in crypto are consistent with types of shares in the economy.Oct 30, 2018, 10:03 AMCurt Doolittleno. they are uninsured. the state insures. crypto doesn’t and cant. which is precisely why fiat money exists and is more advantagous than all other forms of money combined: insurability.Oct 30, 2018, 10:09 AMDougium RingI’m aware that the state insures. It is entirely possible, and I believe likely, that the creation of insured notes via trusted institution (state) based on crypto will be a form of fiat, similar to the gold backed dollar.Oct 30, 2018, 10:17 AM—“You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech”— Andrew Torba, CEO, Gab.com http://Gab.com
