Form: Outline

  • “SHOW ME” : A NICE TERM FOR “AN EXISTENCE PROOF” (more important than is obvious

    “SHOW ME” : A NICE TERM FOR “AN EXISTENCE PROOF”

    (more important than is obvious)

    1 – Show me the money. (Contract) Money as information.

    2 – Show me the property. (Morality) Property as information.

    3 – Show me the energy (Physics) Energy as information.

    4 – Show me the information. (Logic) Decidability as determined by information.

    The problem with apriorism is its analogistic: argument by syllogism. The problem with analytic philosophy: argument by sets. The virtue of operational philosophy: argument by information.

    ***Show me the information***

    (Getting very close on this one now. I can’t make it ring true for everyone yet, but I am getting pretty close. It will come to me.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:58:00 UTC

  • DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE” (understanding dishonest debate tactics and

    DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE”

    (understanding dishonest debate tactics and propaganda)

    The complex deceptive argument structure called Critique, it consists of these tactics,

    (a) Straw men points of advocacy as mere vehicles for criticism and attack,

    (b) Avoiding support of their argument, and using empty verbalisms defend it, confirming it with criticisms by returning to the attack rather than the demonstration of the strength of their ideas.

    (c) Using the “reasonable man” argument including moral appeals, appeals to reasonableness, to making individual exceptions to cases on an individual rather than facts and the problem of the consequences of exceptions at scale.

    (d) “Psychologizing” an ad hominem attacking the motivations of the opponent rather than the facts and structure of the argument.

    (e) Attempting to invoke guilt however possible.

    (f) Use of Ridicule, Shaming and Rallying as Moral Authoritarianism;

    (g) Overloading (saturation), Loading and Framing. (Use of suggestion)

    (h) Use of Verbalisms (analogies, moral reasoning, and pseudoscience);

    (i) Use of terminology as a logically authoritarian truth, rather than convention and claiming ignorance or incomprehension of alternatives.

    (j) Retreat into Dogma, and moral offense, and return to critique

    (k) Appeal to heroic figures with unworthy praise;

    (l) Flooding a market with confirmatory propaganda.

    (m) Use of dogma and verbalism to create a sectarian language with sectarian meaning and thereby constructing in-group/out-group conditions (a cult).

    (n) Offering in-group membership for compliance, and threatening out-group membership for non-compliance.

    In other words, they don’t defend their ideas (because they aren’t defensible) they merely use any weak idea, and the weaker the better, because it is easier to defend verbally and harder to attack logically, as a means of attacking your idea. (See Lew Rockwell’s most recent book as an example of a promised solution but delivering nothing but chapters of criticism without any solution provided.)

    The strategy of Critique is to use western altruism (exaggerated universal morality) to create a sense of guilt against in-group members, and to invoke western altruistic punishment against in-group members, and therefore create an environment where out-group members can use deception, trickery and verbalism to employ systemic parasitism, rather than engaging in mutually beneficial production – while arguing that the approach is for the good of all.

    In effect it is an elaborate set of deceptions and lies in order to overload the conversation such that we must rely on moral intuition rather than reason.

    It is another assault on truth telling, and the aristocratic society. An attempt to cast immoral as moral.

    Understand that the Misesian/Rothardian “Austrian” split is not Austrian at all, but yet another avenue for Critique. The only Austrians are the classical liberals at GMU etc.

    COUNTERING CRITIQUE

    1) As in any argument counter with the truth by calling out their tactic, refuse guilt for what is in your group interest, then return to the central argument.

    DONE

    So, it’s done. They’re done. It’s just a matter of putting in enough hands, and filling it all in.

    Put a fork in it.

    Ready to serve.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:31:00 UTC

  • READING LIST FOR THE COMMON LAW (PRIVATE LAW) – Hayek’s The Constitution of Libe

    READING LIST FOR THE COMMON LAW (PRIVATE LAW)

    – Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty

    – Milsom’s Natural History of the Common Law.

    – Plucknett’s A Concise History Of The Common Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 11:34:00 UTC

  • Table Of Ethical Arguments

    [F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.

    1172336_10151803865582264_1663728899_o
  • Table Of Ethical Arguments

    [F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.

    1172336_10151803865582264_1663728899_o
  • THE TABLE OF ETHICAL ARGUMENT ETHICAL 1) Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge

    THE TABLE OF ETHICAL ARGUMENT

    ETHICAL

    1) Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence.

    ETHICALLY POSSIBLE

    2) Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated.

    ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

    3) Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction.

    UNETHICAL

    4) Dishonest speech.

    🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 04:47:00 UTC

  • WE ARE COMPATIBLE 1 – MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COMPATIBILISM. 2 – PROGRESSIV

    WE ARE COMPATIBLE

    1 – MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COMPATIBILISM.

    2 – PROGRESSIVE, LIBERTARIAN, AND CONSERVATIVE MORAL COMPATIBILISM.

    3 – ARISTOCRATIC AND ASHKENAZI SOCIAL COMPATIBILISM.

    You know, that it’s democracy that makes us incompatible. Because under democracy, we have nothing but tyranny of the majority, because democracy merely justifies monopoly. The market allows us to cooperate even though we have different preferences and values. But the market can’t always help us with commons. Why isn’t the government like a market; a place for exchanges, rather than a means of justifying one group’s dominance of another?

    THE TRUTH MAKES US COMPATIBLE.

    But only if the law reflects the truth.

    There is only one moral principle.

    And every time we violate it, we lose an opportunity for mutually constructive exchange. We create conflict.

    We were the people who told the truth. They taught us to lie.

    ITS TIME FOR A RESTORATION


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 08:43:00 UTC

  • SNIPPETS OF OATHS (truth, property, insurance : aristocracy) Speak the truth, ev

    SNIPPETS OF OATHS

    (truth, property, insurance : aristocracy)

    Speak the truth, even if it leads to your death.

    Take not that wasn’t justly paid for.

    Safeguard the helpless.

    Punish the wicked.

    Virtue knows no convenience and apology,

    Only duty, and celebration or mourning.

    Nobility is a choice.

    Choose.

    .


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 03:23:00 UTC

  • ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I DIDN”T WANT TO UNDERSTAND My work has led me to this

    ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I DIDN”T WANT TO UNDERSTAND

    My work has led me to this conclusion:

    1) Humans must acquire – and acquire all sorts of things.

    2) To acquire among others we negotiate.

    3) In negotiation we justify.

    4) We trade signals to to obtain discounts in exchange for status.

    5) Truth (correspondence) about the real world provides a negotiating advantage.

    6) Truth in social matters would disallow discounts obtained in exchange for status (or other opportunity)

    I will try to expand that a bit, but it isn’t any more complicated than that.

    Some people are much better at justifying than others. (verbal acuity)

    Universalism is a form of justification that makes use of cognitive biases: Caldnin’s “weapons of influence” are means by which we justify (steal) in by taking advantage of cognitive biases.

    Our genes are selfish, They need to be. And selfish genes win.Truth can be an advantage or a handicap. Justification can be an advantage or a handicap.

    If you grasp this then it sort of ruins the whole moral nature of christendom. We are not families. If we treat one another as kin then, some families will be destroyed by other families.

    Cooperation on means is mutually beneficial. But, universalism is a deceptive attack on the excellent and true. It is parasitism.

    If that doesn’t ruin your philosophical day, then not a lot will.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-20 01:26:00 UTC

  • THREE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT FREE OF CORRUPTION The only way to avoid the princi

    THREE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT FREE OF CORRUPTION

    The only way to avoid the principle-agent problem in politics is simply NOT to use agents. In order to avoid using agents, we have three choices:

    1) Anarchic Contractual Government (no commons)

    2) Direct Democracy (auctions to fund proposals for commons)

    3) Demarchy / Lottocracy (randomly selected juries that judge policy proposals).

    THe problem of politics is not the production of commons. It’s politicians, bureaucracy, and the inability to secede.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-17 20:01:00 UTC