Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 05:24:00 UTC

  • STRATEGY: DISCOVER > CONQUER > RULE > DOMESTICATE > TRANSCEND White man’s burden

    STRATEGY: DISCOVER > CONQUER > RULE > DOMESTICATE > TRANSCEND

    White man’s burden was just the most recent excuse for profiting from domesticating and then evolving man.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:52:00 UTC

  • (in progress) (note to self) TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    (in progress) (note to self)

    TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    -The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    -The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.

    -The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.

    -The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.

    Everything else is education

    THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.

    1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )

    2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).

    3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).

    4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.

    5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Soveriegn Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.

    6) By incrementally suppressing all unsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those unsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.

    7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.

    8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c)

    TRUTH

    The problem of the second Great Deceit.

    Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.

    The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.

    Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions

    Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.

    We already know most of those due diligences.

    But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.

    Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).

    LAW

    When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).

    We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)

    Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.

    This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.

    To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.

    The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.

    Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.

    MARKET FOR COMMONS

    The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.

    ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION

    Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND

    But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.

    AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED

    Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.

    Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:

    1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)

    2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)

    3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)

    4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)

    5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)

    6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)

    SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE

    What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).

    TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT

    So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.

    Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.

    WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT

    Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.

    Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.

    If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.

    THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’

    So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.

    YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE

    If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.

    Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:44:00 UTC

  • (in progress)(note to self) Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and

    (in progress)(note to self)

    Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and Economists in your opinion?” — Jose R. Alzaibar

    1. UNSCIENTIFIC (INCOMPLETE)

    Well, I’ll try to do a better job than Nassim Taleb at making a similar point, and say that to testify that you speak truthfully, and that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, for the purpose of committing fraud, economists would have to provide the following warranties of due diligence of their propositions:

    a) categorical consistency (identity)

    b) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    c) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    d) existential possibility (operational descriptions) *praxeological*

    e) moral possibility (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    f) limits, full accounting, and parsimony (fully accounted)

    In economics, except in rare circumstances, only a,b,c are ever vaguely satisfied. item (d) is almost never satisfied, and (e) is never satisfied, and they seem to be not even aware of the importance of (f).

    Now, regarding (d), existential possibility, in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, we only know that the universe equilibrates fully at all times, and therefore, that mathematics can be used to precisely model phenomenon that we observe. At some point we hope to know the first principles of the universe, and once we do, we can test our theories by operational construction from first principles. So in the physical sciences we must run tests and rely upon mathematical equilibrium (so-called ‘perfect symmetry’) and upon determinism (the result of the production of perfect symmetry via perfect equilibrium) as the test of our theories.

    Also, regarding (e), moral possibility, the universe does not have the choice of acting morally and preserving the incentive to cooperate, or immorally to hinder the incentive to cooperate. The universe is amoral, and we do not cooperate with it, we are merely subject to its laws.

    So (d) existential possibility, by tested by operational construction and (e) moral possibility, tested by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited externalities of the same criteria, are not properties we can yet (d), or ever shall (e), ask one another to warranty that one has done due diligence to test prior to testifying (stating) any theory.

    But when making statements in economics (the monetary measurement of cooperation), social sciences (the categorical study of cooperation), and the institutional method of existence of cooperation: habit, norm, ethics, morals, law, tradition, ritual, and mythos – we can both test (d) existential possibility and (e) moral possibility.

    The reason being that we know the first principles of human behavior through subjective testing of incentives (‘understanding the other person’s incentives’). and we must know that because without an understanding of intentions and incentives we could neither cooperate, nor reward one another for cooperation, nor punish one another for actions that inhibit cooperation. We could not form juries which depend entirely upon the ascertainment of intentions and incentives. The pre-cooperative creature finds safety in numbers, mating in numbers, information in numbers, but merely seizes opportunities amidst competitive threats within the limits of the creature’s range of perception and action. They do not cooperate. To cooperate requires a sympathetic transfer of intention between individuals.

    So, since man is a rational actor in the pursuit of his desires and following his incentives – even at the extremes of mental disability, if we can ascertain a sequence of events and actions, each of which we can subjectively test as ‘reasonably rational’, then we can construct a recipe (sequence of events) under which the individual’s actions are ethical, moral, and possible – or not.

    Now we come to (f), the determination of limits, parsimony, and full accounting. And these tests demonstrate the troublesome difference between our warranty of due diligence of the physical universe and our warranty of due diligence in cooperation. That is that the universe perfectly equilibrates because it must, and man does not perfectly equilibrate *because he must not.* And in that difference we find the opposite importance between mathematics of perfect symmetry in the physical universe, and operational construction in in the universe of human cooperation.

    So, mainstream

    (…how man always bends objective ethics and morals to accommodate current distributions of ability…)

    2. SELF CONFIRMING SELECTION BIAS INSTEAD OF FULL ACCOUNTING

    3. TRUTH (SCIENCE, FACILITATION,EUGENICS) VS FALSEHOOD (INTERFERENCE/FRAUD/DYSGENICS)

    Different camps possess different levels of confidence (arrogance).

    (a) social science (Austrian – positive externality) long term.

    (b) rule of law (freshwater – balanced externality) medium term.

    (c) rule by discretion (saltwater – negative externality) short term.

    So the conservative movement practices social science, the rule of law movement practices good government, and the rule by discretion movement practices what they consider the most immediately human (arbitrary) discretion.

    Different camps favor families and capital construction and others favor individual consumption.

    Different camps are more comfortable interfering with planning and contract, and others are less comfortable interfering with planning an contract.

    4. REPRODUCTIVE TIME PREFERENCE, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

    (a) Parasites encourage consumption by the host, and then move to a new host.

    (b) Members insure one another against extraordinary hardships.

    (c) People subject the population to constant culling in pursuit of constant improvement.

    5. UNIVERSALISM

    6. DYSGENIC, DECIVILIZING, DEVOLUTIONARY


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:39:00 UTC

  • THE VIKING’S, SPARTANS, and ATHENIANS: THE ARYAN’S APPLICATION OF THE DEFAULT AG

    THE VIKING’S, SPARTANS, and ATHENIANS: THE ARYAN’S APPLICATION OF THE DEFAULT AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

    (interesting)(important)

    VIKING

    Viking (raiding) Policy: “You can trade with us over the long term, or we can conquer and kill you and take your things and your women in the short term. You have no choice to exit. Having discovered you, we will ‘homestead’ you.”

    SPARTAN

    The Spartan (enslaving) Policy: “We can finance your conquest by taking your land, things, and women, and enslaving you, and then domesticate you for profit.”

    ATHENIAN

    The Athenian (ruling) Policy: “Having conquered, domesticated, enslaved, and domesticated you, we can slowly grant you access to the franchise because it is cheaper and more profitable to rule and regulate citizen-customers, than to rule and manage owned-slaves.”

    ROMAN

    The Roman (Commercial) Policy: “You can do as you wish, as long as you do not interfere with rule of law, production, commerce, and trade. If you do then we will punish you until you learn to.”

    ANGLO

    The Anglo-Christian (transcendent) Policy: “We can profit from industrializing rule and in doing so raise mankind out of ignorance, mysticism, poverty, and disease.”

    AMERICAN

    The American (bourgeoise) Policy: “Man is oppressed by the rulers. We can enfranchise all, and profit from enfranchising all.”

    (ROOT) ARYAN

    The Aryan Rule Policy: It is more profitable to rule you, and force you into productivity and trade, than it is to kill you and take your things. We can finance the startup cost of ruling you by taking your territory, your things, and your women, and then enslaving you, until you are sufficiently domesticated that we can profit from your productivity. Citizen customers are cheaper to rule and more productive than slaves.

    This is the group evolutionary strategy of the Aryans removed of Aryan-Christian deceits.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:12:00 UTC

  • ( When I’m talking to stupid people I keep using my ‘travel voice’. I have to wo

    ( When I’m talking to stupid people I keep using my ‘travel voice’. I have to work to start talking like an american again. lol )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:01:00 UTC

  • THE *DEFAULT AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE* —“Propertarian Ethics operate by the Defaul

    THE *DEFAULT AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE*

    —“Propertarian Ethics operate by the Default Aggression Principle. We need an excuse not to aggress against you. The only excuse is if we engage in productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. Otherwise aggression against you is preferable to parasitism by you.”—Clay Caldwell

    ( This is priceless Clay )

    The Default Aggression Principle (Clay)

    The Non Parasitism Principle (Butch)

    (William Butchman)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 08:13:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT – FOR THE PROSECUTION Propertarianism argument functions a

    PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT – FOR THE PROSECUTION

    Propertarianism argument functions analytically – as a criticism. Ergo propertarian argument functions prosecutorially. The assumption is that we will find fraud. Not because all men are evil and seeking to deceive (per se). But because all men are victims of genetically induced justification of our reproductive strategies via ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and obscurantism.

    An argument is true and good as long as it is both not-false and non-parasitic. And we can only know if it is good and true if it is complete: fully accounted.

    We must meet all three criteria: True, Fully Accounted, and Good.

    But we only know if it is true fully accounted and good, through prosecution of the alternatives, not justification of the statements alone.

    Think of it this way: there are many roads to Rome. We only know the shortest road if we know the lengths of all the roads.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 08:09:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS The difference between Anglo Propert

    PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

    The difference between Anglo Propertarian Ethics and Marxist Argumentation Ethics is the difference between the threat of killing you for fraud, and the nicety of non-contradiction before a third party.

    Aristocratic Sovereign Strength: Propertarianism : deeds

    Weak Middle Class Begging for Liberty: Argumentation : words.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 07:59:00 UTC

  • “Part of the political challenge is that there’s no way to physically separate a

    —“Part of the political challenge is that there’s no way to physically separate anymore. Exit is not realistic. That used to obviate some of the problems of parasitism. But the progressive domination machine does not allow for being left in peace to form non-parasitic communities.”— Michael Churchill


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 07:54:00 UTC