(why am i .. )
Why am I writing software at 4:00am? Because I worked until 10 last night, and fell asleep struggling with a problem. And so ‘the machine’ woke me up, having solved it. And … well,… strike while the iron is hot.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-02 04:03:00 UTC
(overheard in the states)
—” You know, the problem with large breasts, is that it’s much harder to drink from your wine glass. “—
“FBP” World Issues
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-01 19:26:00 UTC
—“Your father was a killer. Your brothers are killers. Your sons will be killers. The world is built by killers. So you’d better get used to looking at them.”—
We don’t do near enough killing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-01 16:38:00 UTC
—“So the take-away is not that you’re ‘Marxists,’ but that you share the fallacy of suppression by a ruling elite as opposed to being the beneficiary of human husbandry by the western aristocracy, the remote geography, and harsh winters.”—Gary Knight
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-01 16:20:00 UTC
https://mises.org/library/why-mises-and-not-hayekNO HANS. … BUT LOOK. YOUR STRAW MEN ARE BURNING.
https://mises.org/library/why-mises-and-not-hayek
I probably should publish an open letter on this subject but here is the correction of Hans’ position.
*It’s a False Dichotomy*
1 – The central question is whether propositions and theories are true enough to justify the use of force to enforce them without provoking defense and retaliation, that itself provides defense and retaliation – producing retaliation cycles. Hans is asking the wrong question. He is justifying economics rather than the results of the use of economic inquiry to alter human behavior because it provides decidability in questions of retaliation for the imposition of costs: what we call: Natural Law.
2 – Mises, Popper, and Hayek Failed as a Team To Solve The Problem of Cosmopolitan Pseudoscience, French Moralism, German Rationalism, and AngloPuritan Incomplete physical Empiricism and social utopianism. This set of various failures originates in the fact that the law in each ‘tribe'(culture) was the primary influence of the enlightenment in Cosmopolitan and Anglo Civilizations despite the vast differences between the Diasporic separatist, poly-logical justificationary law, and the anglo germanic naval-traders empirical law. Cultural Tradition and Philosophy were the primary influences of the enlightenment in German civilization thanks to Kant’s attempt to create a secular christianity despite correctly judging man’s rational rather than moral or immoral nature. Rousseau’s reinterpretation of Catholicism as moral narrative overcame Descarte’s influence, creating the false myths of man’s moral nature. Russian reinterpretation through literature was truncated by both invasion of cosmopolitan and french authoritarian thought, and the decidedly brutal cosmopolitan attempt to conquer Russia,s weaker literary, cultural, and political systems via bolshevism – so it never came to blossom.
3 – Popper correctly transformed epistemology from justificationism (excuse making – seeking permission from community and crown), to criticism (survival from criticism regardless of permission from community and crown).
4 – Mises correctly identified the necessary logic of criticism (test of natural law), with his invention of praxeology (economic operationalism). But he incorrectly stated it as a science rather than a logic by which we criticize theories. (Aside from the fact that he clearly had no concept of the demarcation between axiomatic (informationally complete) models, and theoretic (incomplete) descriptions.)
5 – Hayek correctly identified common, judge-discovered, empirical, natural law as our only critical, empirical, social science. But he was unable to deduce the unit of measure(property), or its cause(non imposition of costs against that which others had borne costs).
6 – Hoppe and Rothbard (more Hoppe than rothbard in my opinion) correctly identified that the unit of empirical commensurability for the purpose of decidability in dispute resolution in our social science is property, just as the unit of commensurability for the purpose of decidability in personal preferences between property is money.
7 – My contribution (as my own cultural bias: an american empirical scientist) has been to restate Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard and Hoppe, as the solution to the Wilsonian Synthesis: We have, across three generations, by combining Cosmopolitan(Mises/Popper), German (Hayek/Hoppe), and Anglo(Scientific) research programs, despite our various cultural biases, not only (finally) developed a formal social science superior in completeness to the current state of the physical sciences, but by doing so we have united biology, ethics and morality(cooperation), law, (cooperation), politics (institutions of cooperation), group evolutionary strategy, and science and philosophy(truth-telling) under a single universally commensurable language.
BUT SCIENCE ADVANCES WITH FUNERALS
Yet, I suspect, that like in all science, as in all disciplines, knowledge progresses with funerals. Hans will not (or may not at this point be able to) abandon his investment in cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and german rationalism, and join the darwinian era of scientific reasoning. Rockwell is an exceptional organizer and activist, but has over-invested in fallacies, and in my experience hasn’t the depth of knowledge required to exit it. Block is a cosmopolitain in word and deed. And these are the only people producing anything of merit in the cosmopolitan, rothbardian-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist (diasporic separatist), movement.
So rather than engage in the Cosmopolitan (pseudoscientific), use of marxist(Cosmopolitan) straw men, lauding of undue praise, shaming of disagreement rather than fact or lie, rallying moral allies, rather than rallying to critical (scientific) truth, perhaps it would be time to restore the quest for liberty to its origins: the pursuit of “Sovereignty in Numbers”: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men, who created that sovereignty by reciprocal insurance, and the organized application of violence to prohibit any alternative other than a condition of Sovereignty. The term Liberty is merely special pleading on the part of the middle class for conditions of sovereignty because of commercial rather than martial contributions to the commons. The term ‘Freedom’ is merely special pleading on the part of the working classes for conditions of sovereignty in exchange for participating in the market and maintaining the commons. The term positive freedom is merely a term used by the dependent classes for subsidy in exchange for non-violation of the commons. But it is sovereign men who create liberty, and freedom, and subsidy, by the organized application of violence to prohibit any alternative. And it is the prosperity that is created by Sovereign men in the forms of liberty, freedom, and subsidy, that attracts all to their domain.
Mises is not more important than Hayek; nor both more important than Popper; nor Rothbard and Hoppe more important than all three, nor me more important than all.
And Cosmopolitan (dishonest) rhetorical technique of heaping of undue praise on Mises despite his (intellectually embarrassing) attempt to cast his discovery of the method of criticizing empirical observations of cooperation (whether internal subjective tests, or external observed tests, or instrumentally observed tests) as purely deductive ‘science’ rather than an operational test of existential possibility of voluntary cooperation, and thereby objective morality: Natural Law; And arguing for the straw man of the virtue of economics rather than social science and the decidability of non-imposition, property in toto, and natural law; Undeservedly lauding Rothbard over the fallacy of the sufficiency of intersubjectively verifiable property while criticizing Hayek despite his correct identification of common law as a means of calculating the current scope of property in toto; All of these are just common intellectual failures of those who confuse religious pseudo-law, hermeneutic interpretation, rational justification, and feminine rallying and shaming, with the identification of, and truthful (testimonial) scientific (survivable) natural law by which we are able to use violence to enforce objective morality, and therefore produce economic returns without the creation of retaliation cycles.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
We will either refute and correct the Hoppeian/MIses Institute Narrative, and take (due) credit for solving the 2500 year old problem of the artificial demarcation between religion, philosophy, morality, law, and science, and forever cast the names of those involved in intellectual history, or Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and the Mises Institute and all its members will be remembered in history as the political and economic equivalent of phlogiston theory.
I will continue under the intentionally antagonistic label ‘Market Fascism’ which differs from Anarcho Capitalism by the simple criteria of using property in toto (demonstrated property) for decidability – including the commons of air, water, land, monument, institution, tradition, norm, and information – rather than intersubjectively verifiable property. The Tradition of Europa vs The Tradition of Commune and Ghetto.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-01 13:00:00 UTC
ELI ON WESTERN POLYTHEISM and CURT ON THE QUALITY OF GODS.
—“Gods are important for the wisdom and virtues they embody and exemplify. … But different classes and different castes make use of, and require, different wisdom and different virtues. … Therefore, they worship different gods, even if they call them by the same name. … The God of a warrior is not the same god as the God of a commercial trader, or the God of a laborer, or the God of a Housewife, or the God of a King, or the God of a scribe.”—Eli Harman
Any individual, class group, tribe, nation, or race that states one god is superior to another claims only that their method of social order by which they compete against other social orders, is superior to another.
People produce evidence of the superiority or inferiority of their social order, by the results of their competition against other social orders.
There is only one measure of any god, just as there is only one measure of any people: the monumental, artistic, economic, and leisure status of its people. Weak poor people have weak poor gods. Gods who lie. Gods who mislead. Gods who enslave. Gods who breed ignorance. Gods who breed poverty. Gods who breed disease. Most gods are the product of the devil in man, not the good in him.
Else there would be no poor. No ignorant. No enslaved. No misled. No deceived.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 17:17:00 UTC
—“Curt. I don’t understand the connection between science and “common empirical law”. Can you explain?”—
Sure.
CONTEXT
English for example consists of three languages: german for the farmers and workers, french for the ruling class, and latin for the intellectual classes. That’s why its hard to understand english: it’s ‘not conflated’. It’s a class based langauge for a class based civilization.
Similarly, Westerners do not conflate
– Science,
– Law,
– Philosophy,
– Religion,
– Festival.
Instead, each of these disciplines reflects the interests of the classes:
– intellectual/scientific,
– ruling/martial,
– middle/commercial,
– working/family, and
– sport/mating/youth/children.
Because of this non-conflation, westerners are essentially polytheistic – but each class both speaks in a language of its own, and makes use of the ‘theisms’ of whatever classes they participate in. (hence the decline in religion for self-centric families and retention of it for family-centric families).
Because we have been practicing “Market (commercial) Society” for so long, and because we have been outbreeding and are largely homogenous outside of the lower Mediterranean, its hard to see the caste system in the west. But it’s present everywhere OUTSIDE of the “Market” (commerce).
Communism, Socialism and tehir current incarnation as Democratic Secular Humanism are all simply attempts to exploit market society and to destroy the aristocratic (caste) system. So this dominates our state, academy, school, and media. Meanwhile the ‘conservatives’ resist this change in various ways – more successfully than their European counterparts.
NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE CONTEXT, LET US RETURN TO YOUR QUESTION
Aristocracy was imposed on the west by the Yamna (Aryans). And these people had already invented contractualism – out of necessity. And had already developed testimonial ism – the predecessor to empiricism. These are big words but they simply mean that they did not speak in theoretical terms, because martial epistemology is very unforgiving. So they treated all speech as ‘oath’, not ‘teaching’ or ‘sharing’. (I am trying to illustrate the cultural difference because for some cultures this kind of truthfulness in public is hard to comprehend.)
So these warriors, each of whom functioned as a business owner, debated, and used juries (thangs) of different sizes, rather than dictates from rulers to decide community issues.
The greeks maintained this combination of martial epistemology, and testimony, and debate. ANd this is why they were able to extend that process into their reason, and then into primitive science. (Aristotle’s study of constitutions for example). And we see the same in Machiavelli (inventor of political science), and we see the same in Bacon (inventor of empiricism), and of course, bacon plus literacy broke the curse of conflationary Christian mysticism – albeit slowly – creating all manner of sectarian fundamentalism, until we reach darwin and maxwell which end the church’s mysticism and mysticism’s use in our political life forever.
So the fact is that westerners have been ’empirical’ into pre-history for reasons that are not konwn to us. And we are fairly certain now that ‘religion’ in the sense of a political movement, was evolved in REACTION to them. (yep). And this conflcit between religion – including its pseudoscientific secular version today – and science (truthfulness) persists in the current era.
So just as the Common Law (discovered by judges) evolved in reaction to empirical resolution of disputes, quite different from LEGISLATION (commands by politicians), science evolved through trial and error, and the market evolved through trial and error.
That’s an awfully brief explanation of 5000 years. But hopefully it will get the point across.
martial epistemology
Testimony and debate
Non conflation (classism)
Discovered law
Discovered science
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 12:22:00 UTC
—“You and the GOP are just …. (implications of immaturity). And you are committing treason (thereabouts)”—
Interesting question. Am I? Treason against my kin. No. Treason against my people. No. Treason against morality? No. Treason against Natural Law? No. That leaves legislative command. I is it possible to conduct treason against legislative command, unless such legislative command is in the service of natural law, my people, and my kin? No.
Which is superior morality? The Objective morality of Natural Law, Normative Morality, or legislative command?
What is the difference between the parties now vying for possession of the violence of the state by which to bring about their preferred ends?
The Masculine Eugenic Accumulation of Competitive Capital vs the Feminine Dysgenic Surrender to Consumption
Only a child, a solipsist, the dim, or the ignorant, express moral purpose in experiences vs common capital.
But this is all that the child, solipsist, dim, and ignorant can imagine and judge. Ergo Paternalism reigns.
If one states moral decidability by experiential rather than intertemporal, he demonstrates incompetence.
We do not let children, solipsists, dim, and ignorant, run with scissors – for all of our protection.
The experiment of universal enfranchisement has failed. We have spent down thousands of years of capital.
So now, adults must take the scissors from the child, solipsist, dim, and ignorant, and rebuild capital.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 11:43:00 UTC
SCIENCE EVOLVED INTO THE UNIVERSAL LANGAUGE OF TRUTH TELLING
Through trial and error, we have learned, that science evolved the language of truth-telling as a branch of common empirical law. We use the language of science – the language of testimony – not because it contains the most information, but because it contains the least false information. Because the function of the process and language of science, like the process and language of law, is the removal of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism, and deceit. The international language of truth telling is science. And so we have to ask ourselves, whether, when we desire to communicate in fantasy religion, fantasy literature, fantasy philosophy, why is it that we prefer to?
We study Aristotelianism (Western Philosophy) because it is an extension of empirical western law, that resulted in empirical, testimonial, western science.
We can study philosophy as a fantasy moral literature. We can study philosophy as a rational religion of aspirations. We can study it as pre-scientific method of inquiry. or we can study it as scientific means of speaking truthfully (meaning parsimoniously).
At present most of us study it for the latter reason. But it’s true that some people still study it as fantasy moral literature, rational religion, and pre-scientific, rational inquiry.
I have never found an objection to science over philosophy that wasn’t reducible to an attempt to preserve the illusion of fantasy moral literature.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 06:38:00 UTC
–“Americans could learn a lot from the Westminster system”—Michael Philip
PARTIES
The Jury is in that the British and Germany Party systems are far superior to the American FPTP party systems, because they allow for more consistent policy over longer periods, while ensuring rotation of the party bureaucracies as they fall from competence.
HOUSES
The jury is in that the British legislative houses are far superior to American legislative and executive houses. Primarily because of the emphasis on debate. And partly because of the superiority of the primary schools that (were) in place.
EXECUTIVES
The jury is in that a ‘presidency’ is a failed experiment as a replacement for a monarchy, and that the prime minister provides a superior executive function with greater accountability.
MONARCHY
the Jury is in that a monarchy limited to veto and dismissal is superior in incentives to all of the houses, prime ministers, and presidents. (And the same applies to the governorship of the states. )
JUDICIARY
The Jury is in that the American judiciary is far superior to the British judiciary primarily because the later (stricter) construction of our constitution.
British trials are superior to American trials primarily because of the division of roles between the two classes of lawyers.
BUREAUCRACY
The jury is in that the german method of education and apprenticeship, (and just about all policy other than international) is superior to all others (on earth). this applies to the bureaucracy as well. Although, the jury is also in that private management of any function that services the public is superior to bureaucratic function that services the public.
ECONOMIES
The Jury is in that a mixed economy is insufficiently diverse and that each class effectively requires its own economy and means of distribution of work. The maintenance of the commons for example is absurdly expensive if maintained by the professionals in the private sector. And there is no reason that we do not sop up millions of workers for the permanent maintenance and beautification of the commons by MANUAL means (cleaners, gardeners, arborists, stone and brick masons, painters and plasterers. )
SCALE
But then we are also comparing 60M(a medium nation) to 360M( a continental empire)
SOLUTIONS
American would have been better off by retaining a monarchy limited to veto and disbandment, replacing the senators with the governors upon the invention of the telegraph; splitting the house into business(property requirements) and commons(everyone else), and adopting the Westminster system. This would put the common people in administrative control but limit fashion of the people by multiple layers: common, propertied, regional, monarchic, and judicial. Washington would be weak and the states would be strong, and this central imperial dictatorship would be impossible.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-30 21:34:00 UTC