So we have:
Observation (experience)
Honest Speech (untested)
Truthful Testimony (tested)
Truthful Reconstruction from Testimony (confirmation)
Survival from Criticism (truth candidate)
Distribution (publication invitation to test)
Survival from group criticism (heavily tested truth candidate.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 09:03:00 UTC
SPEAKING THE TRUTH
(reposted)
You can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another.
If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered.
But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability.
if you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence.
We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans.
What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation”
So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak.
So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience.
You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible.
Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean.
Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness.
So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence.
This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence.
So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for.
You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard.
I hope this was helpful to you.
Affections.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 08:31:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:48:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:42:00 UTC
CAPTAIN DIMWIT OF THE GOOD SHIP SCHIZOTYPIA AUTISTICA OUT OF THE PORT OF COWARDICE
(exasperation) (Sebastian Ortiz) (stomping an ass-clown) (the final word on libertines)
Now this a_s-clown is a constant embarrassment and I find it frustrating to defend myself against a_s-clowns, but you know, the world has a_s-clowns that are heavily invested in fallacies, and have challenges with philosophy just like children have challenges with power tools – they hurt themselves and others.
So I will help keep the informational commons free of pollution by playing pool cleaner to this child’s verbal incontinence. And hopefully this refutation will provide a diaper against future cognitive fecal leakage.
—-“Doolittle is a tribal legal positivist … a National Socialist.”—-
Actually I thought I was ‘being’ a scientist using philosophy as familiar argumentative structure, with which to construct a natural (necessary) law basis of existentially possible liberty.
After ‘being’ a scientist I’m a libertarian in the sense that I wish to construct an existentially possible condition of liberty.
Those are two different ambitions: possible libertarian political order vs possible libertine individual action.
A libertine acts without regard to normative morals – he imposes costs on established norms. A libertarian distinguishes between objectively moral norms (truths) and non-objective moral norms (manners), and never violates objectively moral norms (truth), and only violates objectively immoral non-objective moral norms (manners).
(( A common example would be that if a host asks that we pray before a meal, the atheist bows his heads and silently goes along with the ritual with respect and without criticism or complaint. Yet he would never make the same request of his guests. The current version being the removal of shoes in the home in western societies for ritual reasons rather than because our prada shoes which have seen nothing but carpet between home, car, and host.))
To construct a condition of liberty requires a voluntarily constructed order – meaning contractual. I cannot think of an alternative means of constructing voluntary order other than contractual, given that the term contract refers to a vast spectrum from casual nod of agreement to elaborate body of law.
And contractual agreements need (a) a means of decidability, (b) a method of dispute resolution, (c) incentives to enter into the contract that survive competition from alternate incentives, and (d) incentives to adhere to the contract that survives competition from alternate incentives.
And to construct a polity of any scale one needs those same (a,b,c,d).
So given that humans are rational and act in their rational self interest given the intelligence, knowledge, and experience at their disposal, the choice to join and remain in any given political order wherein the possibility of entrance and exit exists, requires we provide incentives to attract and maintain a citizenry. In other words we must construct an economically viable contractual order in which the person can exercise the greatest **existentially possible** liberty, that is sufficiently competitive with competing orders that people prefer to remain within our order versus defect to another.
This is the problem. Its a game problem. Just as pairing off in marriage isn’t the best theoretical solution for anyone, it’s the best existentially possible solution for everyone. Just as we desire different degrees of limited constraint on our actions does not mean that we can construct the best theoretical solution for any one of us, only the best existentially possible solution for all of us given the human beings and environment at our disposal.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDITION OF LIBERTY
As such we face the following problems in constructing a condition of liberty:
1) the production of prohibited commons is a competitive advantage (the town square, keeping bums off the streets, policing.) No matter if produced by monopoly(corporate), private(aristocratic), or volunteer(civic) means – all of which are open to free riding.
2) the production of fixed capital commons – a dam or bridge – is a competitive advantage. No matter if produced by monopoly(corporate), private(aristocratic), or volunteer(civic) means.
3) the production of productive commons is a competitive advantage, and all states that subsidize major industries out-compete those that do not, producing asymmetric returns.
4) the higher suppression of parasitism the lower the transaction and opportunity costs, the higher the trust, the higher the economic velocity, the more incentive to remain in the polity. Conversely, the lower the suppression of parasitism the higher the transaction and opportunity costs, the lower the trust, and the lower the economic velocity, and the lower incentive to remain in the polity.
5) The higher the parasitism, the lower the trust, the lower the economic velocity, the greater the incentive to expand parasitism and the greater demand for a state to suppress opportunity for parasitism, parasitism itself, and limit retaliation.
6) The lower the trust the higher demand for the state the larger the state that is necessary, the greater the cost of diversion to the state to pay for suppression of opportunity for parasitism, parasitism it self, and to limit retaliation for acts of parasitism.
7) the lower the suppression of parasitism, the more parasites one hosts, the more externalities produced, the more threat one poses to neighboring polities, the more likely neighboring polities will intervene against you.
Ergo one can only produce a condition of liberty under a high trust society. A high trust society requires elimination of demand for the state by the provision of sufficient means of conflict resolution that all conflicts can be resolved by procedural means. This is why we are dependent upon a single law of non-imposition of costs against property en toto, so that with each innovation in parasitism the law can evolve to suppress it, leaving only homesteading of opportunities and the consequent productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer of property en toto free of externality, as our only means of survival.
THE PROBLEM OF NORMS
Norms evolved without this knowledge. So there exist objectively moral norms, objectively immoral norms, normative signals (rituals and manners), and mere habits of individuals that have no impact one way or the other.
In other words, while laws are necessary for discounting the cost of organizing production, reproduction, and dispute resolution, not all normative rules of action need be codified in law for later reference, because not all necessarily lead to conflict. Violations of manners can usually be managed by opportunity boycott simply by prohibiting people from environments for their behavior.
Furthermore, some norms can be policed by gossip (reputation). although given the size of our polities, gossip has declined in usefulness.
So in this case all norms can be competed against either through association, through ostracization, or through conflcit resolution in courts. But in no case can objectively immoral norms persist unless people choose not to resist them by association, ostracization and conflict resolution.
THE PROBLEM OF COMMONS
This is a problem of democracy not a problem of law. We produce private property and exclude people from them. We can produce limited commons and exclude people from them. we can produce unlimited commons and exclude people from them. conversely we can grant a series of rights to commons including Transitus (transit), Usus (use), Fructus (the fruits of it) while still prohibiting Abusus (privatization or consumption) or Mancipio(Transfer). So should you not wish to pay for some commons you may abstain from the use of it.
COOPERATION
Cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. Even cooperation in mutual defense. Even cooperation in boycott rather than cooperation or conflcit is superior to non-cooperation.
No man is an island. If you are unworthy of cooperation then to not ask the world to change for you, but change so that you are worthy of cooperation. Most of the time the individual possesses self assessed worth or value greater than the empirical evidence of that value in cooperation with others. If that is the case the one can choose not to cooperate, but that means others will not pay the cost of his non-cooperation.
LIBERTY
Liberty is not obtained by individual choice alone, but by mutual insurance that we will not impose costs upon that which has been obtained by others by means of homesteading of opportunities, and the consequent productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
Liberty is produced only when we use the organized application of violence to deny humans survival by any means other than that which fosters cooperation.
There are no free rides. Everyone fights. No one quits. If you quit, then you live by someone else’s permission, not by liberty.
LIBERTINISM
You ‘libertines’ are not arguing for libertarianism (a condition of liberty) but for libertinism: where if you respect life and property you may escape payment for all other commons whether physical, normative, or institutional.
The problem is people crush libertines in all civilizations. Libertine is the masculine version of the female hyper-consumer who votes for all sorts of normative rents that cause all sorts of internal consequences.
ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM
Ashkenazi separatism (jewish group separatism)
and
Rothbardian libertinism (individual separatism)
These are both attempts to obtain the benefits of costly liberty without paying for them.
This is why you are a free rider. If you want to create a world without commons using only the NAP/IVP, then you can create a commune which is what the libertine fallacy requires. But since it will forever remain economically backward, and since it will have no commons with which to construct multiples. Ans since it cannot compete for members other than those who care more about escaping payment for the commons than they do possessing the returns on the commons, then it will be like all ‘libertine’ communities. Ether parasitic like the jewish and gypsy, or on the fringe of survival like the always-failing libertarian ‘communes’ that spring up with regularity and die even faster.
You see it’s just science. People will only stay in a cult if they have paid high cost. They will only form a polity and hold to it if they have paid a high cost. And a polity can only form if there is a marginally superior benefit to its membership than not.
As we see from so called ‘libertarians’ who are really mere libertines, they prefer to live parasitically on the majority commons while seeking to escape payment for those commons and it is almost always because the individual is not obtaining sufficient status signal rewards from that commons. and the reason he does not is that he does not contribute enough to that commons to receive a return on it from others who might wish to cooperate with him.
So just accept you’re describing libertinism and that rothbardian did to libertarianism what socialists did to liberalism and appropriated the term for their use when it means quite the opposite.
Otherwise you’re just a free-riding liar and a fraud. And we should prosecute you as a free-rider, liar and a fraud. Punish you for free riding, lying, and fraud. And forcibly remove you from any libertarian polity because you are a free rider, liar and a fraud. A thief by deceitful means.
Liar, thief. Fraud. Free rider.
Hopefully I have cleansed the commons somewhat from the mess you have made.
Liar, Thief, Fraud.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(Don’t bring a “pussy-tarian” libertine to a gunfight.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:38:00 UTC
THREE INGREDIENTS FOR BAKING THE CAKE OF LIBERTY:
1) RECIPROCAL INSURANCE (doolittle)
2) INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION (doolittle)
3) PHYSICAL REMOVAL (hoppe)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:35:00 UTC
Philosophy is like the consulting business: there is a low barrier to entry but a low probability of survival, and a near total inability to capitalize your investment.
I survived the consulting business and capitalized my investment too you know.
Sigh. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:18:00 UTC
“ECCENTRIC?”
Olga (an extremely uncomfortably amazingly beautiful woman who works here in some management capacity or other) says to me this morning ‘You are eccentric. That is the right word, yes?”
I laughed. “It’s much better than being called weird”. (much laughter.)
But then I thought I would spin it “You know, for a philosopher it is like advertising. it’s not like you can put a sign on the shop that says ‘shoes’, or wear a card on my head that says philosopher. So if you act eccentric it’s just advertising. People know you’re a philosopher that way. ” (more laughter).
I like making the people here laugh. I like making everyone laugh.
But on a more serious note, and in all honesty, I have found that with increased UNDERSTANDING of the world of man, I am more appreciative of my fellow man, and more joyous in interacting with him….
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:45:00 UTC
The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.
Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.
As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.
Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.
Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.
But each transformation made man better than he was before.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:29:00 UTC
***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to claim it is ‘true’, When you claim something is true, at that point you promise to others it is true enough to determine their action. And by that claim expose them to potential harm. This violates every ethical and moral limit to cooperation.***
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:19:00 UTC