(oversing update)(diary)
This whole React.js stack is pretty amazing. Took me a while to get everything up and running. And I hope like hell it doesn’t bite me when I scale up the app. But damn. great stuff.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 17:54:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 14:19:00 UTC
—“Identity politics mixed with a notion of universal tolerance renders preferential ethic/moral propositions and normative means of decidability ineffective, therefore resorting to Law to accomplish their goals.
I say law opposed to natural law, as the natural law would eventually restore normative and preferential in group methods (because it focusses on reciprocity and property in toto – property in toto includes social portfolios of groups – thus would protect the preferential and normative methods).
Therefore identitarians must seek legislation or regulation as a means to accomplish their ends. The natural law would prevent their ends – ends which necessitate the destruction of social commons of other groups.
If they accomplish the destruction of the “dominant culture”, destruction of each other (each “oppressed” group) would be a natural consequence.
Natural Law stands as a last resort when preferential and normative means fails and stands as the default method across disparate groups who do not share or do not have enough overlap of preferential and normative means.
Natural law provides commensurability between disparate groups.
Legislation/regulation provides a method of destroying disparate groups – a means of predation(at worst) and parasitism (at best). “—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 12:46:00 UTC
DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND MORALITY
All NECESSARY cross-group ethical, and moral propositions are decidable by reciprocity (natural law).
All NORMATIVE in group ethical and moral propositions are decidable by natural law if they are not decidable by normative means.
All PREFERENTIAL interpersonal ethical and moral propositions are decidable by normative means, if they are not decidable by personal means. If not decidable by normative means, then by natural law.
LEGiSLATIVE AND REGULATORY LAW has absolutely nothing to do with whether a proposition is ethical or moral – AT ALL. This is despite the fact that common law evolved, religous law evolved, state law evolved, and legislative law evolved, to resolve interpersonal, inter familial, inter tribal, inter class, and inter national conflicts.
Most questions of ethics are the result of nothing other than conflation of that which is local and different into that which is universal as an attempt to claim authority for one’s personal, normative, or national preferences.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 11:56:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 08:17:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 05:41:00 UTC
POPULIST POSSIBILITIES
(to molyneux)
Michael DeMarco
Topics of this scale are not a subject for call in’s. Just establishing context is an effort. And it’s too likely to convert into a debate that I would win and not necessarily want to. Whereas an interview allows for a gradual meeting of minds and exploration of how the pursuit of liberty (by permission) might be restored to the pursuit of sovereignty (in fact) now that we have fully displaced our martial aristocracy with a secular priesthood so to speak, that no longer willingly grants us permission if we earn it.
While I have spent a substantive effort discrediting the Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe/Friedman, arguments, other than a few early comments, I’ve left Stefan alone since firstly, it appears he has tried to find an alternate path to justifying the libertarian intuition compatible with traditional western ethics. And secondly, because my criticisms would largely be of a technical nature – meaning survival:criticism and science vs explanation: justification and rationalism. So I view him as doing profound good without doing substantive harm.
That said, conversely, Stefan is an incredible educator, and if equipped with some of my arguments it would empower him further with greater reach and greater explanatory power.
I have no interest in popularity. But at present, in this time of change, stefan is serving as english speaking liberty’s olive branch (via positiva): Inspiration, And I am serving as it’s bundle of arrows (via negativa): Law.
And that combination of ideas provides a very interesting possibility in this long-anticipated era of rapid change.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 05:27:00 UTC
—“Curt, what readings do you recommend for epistemology? Specifically, I want to source the work you put into testimonialism. And, can you add those to your reading list?”—
I relied on I think four different axis:
1) I consider Testimonialism a completion of the critical rationalism project. You can read popper for that. If you understand the philosophy of science and falsification vs justificationism that’s half the battle.
2) I came in via Locke/Weber/Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe’s attempt to reduce all moral questions to statements of property rights, and used Haidt’s research to tie it back to evolutionary biology. And that taught me that the only empirical social science was the common (natural) law.
3) I have had a long history of programming and an equally long-running issue with mathematical platonism and so I have spent a significant amount of time on the foundations (theory) of mathematics, and computer science
4) Hayek is the author that I most relate to. And he was the first that I know of to identify the shift from thinking in terms of forces, to electromagnetism, to information – not just in physics – but as the general model for all thought. This corresponds with the evolution of computer science out of mathematics (which is chiefly concerned with forces).
If you were to spend some time reading, my pieces in the FB group “scientific praxeology’ (which is a kind of slur against Misesians) cover the vast majority of the subject.
Here is how I look at it:
When we hit the late 1800’s we surpassed human scale in nearly everything we did, and because of the corrupt incentives provided by the developments of universal democracy, marxism/keynesianism, statistical analysis, Cantorian mathematics, and the distraction of the philosophical community as it tried to create a science out of the study of language, the movement that involve Poincare’, Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek, and Mises (and others) including the attempt to create strict construction in law, all failed.
I think what I have tried (and I think succeeded) in accomplishing is the unification of science, philosophy/morality, and law into a single discipline (Testimonialism) by completing the failed project of the 20th century in defining the means of falsifying enough dimensions of reality that we can implement demands for truthful speech in law.
Everything else that I’ve done flows from this. The argumentative technique that you see my followers use, is an application of testimonialism (epistemology) and propertarianism (ethics) under what we consider to be a formal logic of natural law.
SOURCING.
Well I just gave you the sources, but you know, putting that rather obscure set of blocks together requires fairly deep knowledge of a set of complex disciplines, and it’s non trivial.
I think it’s better to read my writing and work backward from it rather than to read others and attempt to understand it.
(But ask Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Bill Joslin, Josh Jeppson, William Butchman, Moritz Bierling, James Augustus Berens, Con Eli Khan, Ricky Saini … and the whole gang that comments less frequently. I mean, I don’t know how Eli Harman did it. He’s just intuited it I think. Josh says that if you have a grasp of any advanced science and the scientific methods used in it, then its a lot easier. But honestly, there is a reason no one did it before me….. I am not sure it was possible before. It was too much of a leap prior to widespread understanding of the problems of computer science vs mathematics.)
SEE THIS SERIES OF READINGS
https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 21:01:00 UTC
WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST
—“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservatives, and Progressives
Libertarianism is concerned with access to markets and suppression of free riding. We do that better than them.
Conservatives are interested in preservation of Capital and long term investment in families. We do that better too
Progressives, when they aren’t batshit crazy, are interested in advancing the interests of the over looked and under represented.
We have solutions to that problem too, as it’s a goal of increasing the property in toto of so called minority groups.
Incremental suppression, full accounting and property in toto mean that the goals of all non Propertarians are best served by Propertarians.
The reason they won’t debate is that we would expose both their goals AND their lies”— Con Eli Khan
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 16:49:00 UTC
Restore hereditary peers to the house of lords or wait for a new aristocracy to emerge in the upcoming civil war?
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:52:00 UTC