Form: Reply

—“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite

Exceptional question.

But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible.

So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work.

Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him.

**So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality.**

So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults.

That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it.

Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad.

Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors.

Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work.

WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible.

Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned.

The history is comprehensible for certain.

But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy.

Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it.

Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material.

This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study.

So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it.

Thanks for the good question.