Source: Facebook

  • 1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory

    1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.

    3) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining property, constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer)

    4) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)

    2) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and punishment of transgressors.

    5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce

    5) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)

    6) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.

    7) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.

    8) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.

    9) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.

    10) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.

    11) Trust: As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions.

    11) Moral Competition: As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.

    12) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.

    13) Governments, particularly empires (of which states are merely a smaller class), in an effort to first create a standard “weight and measure” in the practice of law, imposed uniform codes on sub groups, for all subgroups under their management, and second, to centralize rent seeking.

    14) Governments then expanded the law to include commands, not uniform standards. Thereby conflating the imposition of standards of law, with the creation of commands holding the status of law – commands that were only law by analogy.

    15) Governments, by homogenizing law, centralized law (and command), and by centralizing law (and command), centralized rent-seeking (and increased it.) Note: this often forced tribal leaders and family elders out of rent seeking and power, and into production, thus lowering transaction costs for production and trade at the expense of increasing overall costs of the parasitic bureaucracy.

    (….Add: free riding and commons…)

    16) Aristocracy sought to prevent centralization in favor of competing jurisdictions that adapt quickly. Bureaucracy sought to centralize a homogenous jurisdiction that provided certainty (stability).

    17) Libertarians (classical liberals), seek to purge rent seeking, from the central system, and return to aristocracy

    18) Libertines (cosmopolitans) seek to restore unethical and immoral action – and non-conflict (non-cooperation) rather than moral and therefore productive cooperation.)

    19) Liberty: ……….(liberty as tariff , slavey, right to local law and custom, libertarianism as standard weight and measure) – not free riding however.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 15:32:00 UTC

  • (To get in trouble tonight, or not to get into trouble tonight? That is the ques

    (To get in trouble tonight, or not to get into trouble tonight? That is the question. And nobility doesn’t enter into it. It’s a purely pragmatic question. A room full of crazy beautiful people and loud music and drinking? Or go to bed, be a good boy and take the early train in the morning? 😉 )


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 14:46:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM? (worth repeating) I consi

    WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM?

    (worth repeating)

    I consider myself a critical rationalist as far as it goes. But:

    1) I practice the art with much higher technical standards necessary to reduce or eliminate error and deception. In my view I practice philosophy as science not rationalism. It is possible that I have come to see all rationalism as justification. I am not yet certain. I do however understand the very great difference between daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing. And that reason is vastly inferior to calculation. And that if I am correct, and property provides us with commensurability then moral and political conflicts are marginally calculable.

    2) I do not believe that CP is empirically true although it is logically true. Only formal study will answer this question but at present the evidence certainly appears to bear out my bias.

    3) I do not believe criticism is as productive a means of innovation as exhausting theories and reforming them – which is why scientists practice exhaustion not criticism. The reason is scientists pursue goals (problems), not knowledge for its own sake (puzzles).

    4) There is no difference between any method of investigation or production other than the value attributed to different outputs of the method we call the scientific method.

    5) Although I believe Miller’s loosely correct, I also believe his emphasis on formal logic (sets) is not equal in value to operational articulation, and is likewise subject to verbalism. In fact, in large part I see the era of set operations involving language as passé, and that like law, functions and operations defeat sets and set membership. In fact, I see Cantorian sets as one of the great disasters of intellectual history.

    (Not that anyone here is going to follow what the hell I’m talking about…)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 08:47:00 UTC

  • Cultural Observations. Stupid Stuff. Last night I was watching a movie where one

    Cultural Observations. Stupid Stuff.

    Last night I was watching a movie where one of the leads was supposedly Russian, but he was obviously a Celt (kelt). And I felt a bit like I was watching someone in blackface: annoyed, disrespectful, and honestly, it harmed suspension of disbelief. There are a lot of tribes among the slavic peoples, and here in Ukraine, while I can’t make them all out – and they are all mixed together with germanic peoples – I can tell Celts from Germans, from Scandinavians, from Poles, from Czechs, from Hungarians, from Slovenians, from the Sythians from the groups with black hair and long heads which I don’t know how to identify (but they scare my genes), from the White Russians, Rus/Ukrainians, Asiatic Russians, from the turkic peoples. But there are others I have no idea where they are from.

    It’s really beautiful. But lets drop the blackface. It’s revolting really.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 06:17:00 UTC

  • CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE The purpose of critique is deception and contro

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE

    The purpose of critique is deception and control. Now that I understand that fact, and that Critical Rationalism can easily be used as an instance of Critique, I understand why it is so frequently misused, and why scientists don’t practice CR. They use falsification, sure, and they are forever skeptical, but they do not practice criticism as critique. In fact, they ignore the philosophical community altogether.

    Worse, CRITICAL RATIONALISM without Operationalism is not compatible with truth tellilng. Construction is not justification it is a test of observation vs imagination.

    As a general rule, misuse of CR places emphasis on meaning as a means of control, while the craft of science produces recipes in the universal language of action without control. Science is compatible with operational language and testimonial truth, and CR, as stated and practiced is not.

    Under CR one has no skin in the game. Under science and testimonial truth, one has skin in the game. Thus we get Rothbards, Lesters and Blocks, not science.

    Our western science evolved not to justify but to emphasize truth telling. Hermeneutic scriptural interpretation and the same under jewish law evolved to justify interpretation, not truthful description of extant events.

    Indo European Aristocratic Egalitarian = warrior testimony.

    Anglo Empirical Testimonial truth = Same

    German Duty Testimonial Truth = Same

    Cosmopolitan Justifiactionary = Not at all the same.

    Yep.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 04:54:00 UTC

  • SHUTTING THE RUSSIAN BORDER, ENACTING 60 REFORMS FOR EU MEMBERSHIP IN 2020

    http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-prepares-close-russia-border-halt-intervention-075619844.htmlUKRAINE SHUTTING THE RUSSIAN BORDER, ENACTING 60 REFORMS FOR EU MEMBERSHIP IN 2020


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 14:55:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? In technical terms: 1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbar

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    In technical terms:

    1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbardian Libertines) allocate all property and rights to individuals, maintain that unethical and immoral thefts are legal, and grant all individuals universal standing (ability to sue).

    2) Classical liberals (“Honest libertarians”) allocate all property and rights to individuals, grant universal standing, and enforce prohibition on unethical and immoral thefts. Classical liberals also encourage construction of commons and prohibit free riding on commons.

    3) Progressives (Democratic Socialists) argue that all property belongs to the corporation (community) and is leased by corporation managers (government) to individuals temporarily for productive use for the good of the community, and that individuals may keep some of the proceeds from the production that they engage in as reward for helping the community.

    I believe that this is the most accurate distinction currently available. Although I could add detail.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 13:47:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU PLEASE VET THIS GUY FOR “100 POSSIBILITY?” Seems like very good at const

    CAN YOU PLEASE VET THIS GUY FOR “100 POSSIBILITY?”

    https://www.facebook.com/kees.colijn?fref=ufi

    Seems like very good at constructing moral examples.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 09:24:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Print


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 08:35:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 07:12:00 UTC