Oct 17, 2019, 11:35 AM (slavery) Slavery existed because of labor required for farming. It ended i) because the labor required for farming first reduced by western agrarian innovation, then ii) was eliminated by western innovation, and iii) because western finance, accounting, and taxation technology made customers provide higher returns than slavery. ie: capitalism(markets) produce incentives that slavery cannot match. People are not moral. They are practical. They just make excuses to virtue signal wealth, and the elimination of slavery was an excuse to signal wealth. Never assume people are ‘good’. They are always selfish. In almost every case, from the jewish ban on max of six years, to the pre-modern period, to the modern, to the reason governments banned slavery so that they could tax these individuals, or prevent such accumulation of wealth under slavery that competitors to the state could emerge in colonies. Same for the American civil war. It was so that the western territories did not fall under the political leadership of the south and preserve slavery, which would have left the south in control of the continent, isolating the industrial north.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Never Attribute to The Moral What Is Merely Self Interest
Oct 17, 2019, 11:35 AM (slavery) Slavery existed because of labor required for farming. It ended i) because the labor required for farming first reduced by western agrarian innovation, then ii) was eliminated by western innovation, and iii) because western finance, accounting, and taxation technology made customers provide higher returns than slavery. ie: capitalism(markets) produce incentives that slavery cannot match. People are not moral. They are practical. They just make excuses to virtue signal wealth, and the elimination of slavery was an excuse to signal wealth. Never assume people are ‘good’. They are always selfish. In almost every case, from the jewish ban on max of six years, to the pre-modern period, to the modern, to the reason governments banned slavery so that they could tax these individuals, or prevent such accumulation of wealth under slavery that competitors to the state could emerge in colonies. Same for the American civil war. It was so that the western territories did not fall under the political leadership of the south and preserve slavery, which would have left the south in control of the continent, isolating the industrial north.
-
Disambiguation of Judicial Judgements
Oct 17, 2019, 1:15 PM I have done a little work on disambiguating the charge misdemeanor vs felony (meaningless), but not enough on judgement restitution, personal punishment (prevention), and political punishment(prevention). These subjects are important because the current structure appears illogical to the public, because some crimes are preventable by political punishments (things that are planned) and some crimes are not preventable by political punishments (animal impulse), and some while seemingly more serious, are less likely to be repeated (impulses), while others more likely to be repeated (planned).
-
Disambiguation of Judicial Judgements
Oct 17, 2019, 1:15 PM I have done a little work on disambiguating the charge misdemeanor vs felony (meaningless), but not enough on judgement restitution, personal punishment (prevention), and political punishment(prevention). These subjects are important because the current structure appears illogical to the public, because some crimes are preventable by political punishments (things that are planned) and some crimes are not preventable by political punishments (animal impulse), and some while seemingly more serious, are less likely to be repeated (impulses), while others more likely to be repeated (planned).
-
Writing Nonfiction Books
Oct 17, 2019, 3:55 PM It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely you can write a paper. Its likely if you can write a series of papers that you can combine them into a book. Most of the time a paper is sufficient for a book. A book merely provides a set of historical examples, or hypothetical examples, that illustrate the sequence of dependencies on the one and and applications on the other. So, learn to write arguments (2pp). Then combine arguments into a paper (20pp), then papers into a book (200pp+). Most authors write books to document their learning experience. This is different from pretense that you have a problem figured out until you have finished your learning experience, accumulated sets of arguments, sets of papers (arguments in context) and can combine them into a book (narrations of examples past and potential that illustrate each argument and paper). There is a reason all libertarian books are introductory. There is a reason all feminist and anti-western authors write in postmodern prose. There is a reason philosophy is written in rationalism rather than the law of reciprocity. So that they can lie. Conversely, there is a reason hard science is written in operational language – so they cannot lie. cheers
-
Writing Nonfiction Books
Oct 17, 2019, 3:55 PM It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely you can write a paper. Its likely if you can write a series of papers that you can combine them into a book. Most of the time a paper is sufficient for a book. A book merely provides a set of historical examples, or hypothetical examples, that illustrate the sequence of dependencies on the one and and applications on the other. So, learn to write arguments (2pp). Then combine arguments into a paper (20pp), then papers into a book (200pp+). Most authors write books to document their learning experience. This is different from pretense that you have a problem figured out until you have finished your learning experience, accumulated sets of arguments, sets of papers (arguments in context) and can combine them into a book (narrations of examples past and potential that illustrate each argument and paper). There is a reason all libertarian books are introductory. There is a reason all feminist and anti-western authors write in postmodern prose. There is a reason philosophy is written in rationalism rather than the law of reciprocity. So that they can lie. Conversely, there is a reason hard science is written in operational language – so they cannot lie. cheers
-
A Possibility of Democratic Process?
Oct 17, 2019, 5:21 PM
QUESTION: —“Curt I have a question for you. Do you think that there is any possibility of a tyrant getting in charge of the USA should it descend into civil war for separation? Or do we think this can be done by democratic processes in place? The latter one I think realistically doesn’t have a chance.”—
There is a possibility of democratic process IF we propose a solution that is a superior alternative to certain conflict. This is what I hope to do. But the public won’t accept that until the conflict is certain. Which will happen soon. Any democrat is by definition a tyrant, because any rule by legislation rather than rule by law of reciprocity is by definition despotism. My hope, and most probable is a military takeover of the government. The problem is that the military needs something to enforce. So we must provide them with the market demand (up rising), moral license (to prevent chaos and civil war), and solution (that they can enforce to maintain the peace). We will need to act before the election. That’s all I can tell you. And that is why I’m working so hard to get enough done to provide that solution – at the last minute. Edit
-
A Possibility of Democratic Process?
Oct 17, 2019, 5:21 PM
QUESTION: —“Curt I have a question for you. Do you think that there is any possibility of a tyrant getting in charge of the USA should it descend into civil war for separation? Or do we think this can be done by democratic processes in place? The latter one I think realistically doesn’t have a chance.”—
There is a possibility of democratic process IF we propose a solution that is a superior alternative to certain conflict. This is what I hope to do. But the public won’t accept that until the conflict is certain. Which will happen soon. Any democrat is by definition a tyrant, because any rule by legislation rather than rule by law of reciprocity is by definition despotism. My hope, and most probable is a military takeover of the government. The problem is that the military needs something to enforce. So we must provide them with the market demand (up rising), moral license (to prevent chaos and civil war), and solution (that they can enforce to maintain the peace). We will need to act before the election. That’s all I can tell you. And that is why I’m working so hard to get enough done to provide that solution – at the last minute. Edit
-
Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply
Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM
—“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius
I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.
-
Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply
Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM
—“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius
I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.