(FB 1548706830 Timestamp) By Eli Harman I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s. One argument he makes for open borders involves a hypothetical. Say one of us went to Haiti, on an aid mission or something. When they were done and ready to come back, we tell them “no, you can’t come back. You have to stay in Haiti.” That would be a dick thing to do to one of our own, argues Bryan Kaplan, and therefore it’s a dick thing to do to Haitians too. The difference, of course. Is that in the one case, we are inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on one of our own, by denying their request to return. While in the other case, we are PREVENTING Haitians (who are not our ingroup) from inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on ALL of our own, by denying their request to enter. So they are not in any way, shape, or form, equivalent cases. This is an example of casuistry (sometimes known as “pilpul”) improperly reasoning from a specific case to a general rule, in this case a bad rule that accomplishes parasitic and destructive ends desired by Bryan Caplan for malicious reasons (Bryan Caplan is by his own admission, scared of majorities and reflexively desires to undermine and attack them. He is a majorityphobe. But Bryan Caplan’s insecurities and ethnic fragility inpose no obligations on us to cater to them.) Casuistry (“Pilpul”) is the cornerstone of their arts of deception and their parasitic group evolutionary strategies.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548788029 Timestamp) ( Did’ja ever notice how much Harman looks like Varg? 😉 )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548697940 Timestamp) –“WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM IN THE MONARCHY?”– The evidence is that families guard their status jealously and that fratricide and patricide are the most common origins of regicide. Secondly, a monarchy has only to defend the very longest term interest and its income from the overall performance of the polity. Monarchies have exceptional records for almost all of human history with the fragility not one of nepotism (since a monarchy has management teams selected from across the realm, many of whom are the best shareholders), but monarchies fail because agrarian production was the only means of competition and therefore territorial expansion the only means of competition. And territorial expansion only achievable by the high risk and high cost of european warfare and consequent ransom. The monarchies simply DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO when the landed and military aristocracy was replaced by the commercial aristocracy, and after the french revolution, the church aristocracy replaced by the state bureaucracy. We know what to do: Increase participation to shift, then decrease participation once shifted. Increase participation by expanding the franchise for each additional class, or decrease the franchise for each additional class once the change has been implemented. During that era guns were far more effective at forcing political change than archers. So the state could no longer use professional warriors to deny the franchise. The only solution is to retain the franchise for those who have demonstrated interests in the preservation of rule of law and the discretion of the monarchy, the republic, or the democracy in the determination of the production of commons. THere no longer a force on earth that can occupy territory against men with small arms (battle rifles) and rpg’s (close proximity man-portable artillery). It cannot be done. Ergo the transition is complete and we have restored the symmetry of power between men. WE need only choose to impose our will on those who would deprive us of rule of law, and the reciprocity that rule of law both depends upon and enforces. It is very hard to read Hoppe, Michels, and Burnham (or machiavelli for that matter) and not understand this.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548779453 Timestamp) —“I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other nations – yes we’ll resist them and survive, but we’ll lose much of what made us great. Propertarianism is the answer.”—Solomon Volodymyr
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548818179 Timestamp) —“CURT: QUESTION: THE ECONOMICS OF THE PERCEPTION OF ART?”— Could you recommend any works on Art Theory? I have been looking a bit into Rand’s Romantic Manifesto. (CD: honestly – and this will surprise people – as far as I know (and I know) there aren’t any better. My work is an extension of the RM. And honestly it’s the best most important piece she wrote and in my opinion the only piece with long term value. It influenced me greatly. If you add Gary Becker’s economic analysis of art I think you get the rest of it.) It seems the absence of art (silence, non-action) achieves non-imposition of costs whereas the act of art always imposes costs. (CD: I would say is broken into two statements. 1- Markets require attention seeking – that is how we reduce opportunity costs: density of opportunity and density of attention opportunities. 2- Some commons offer aesthetic attention seeking as an alternative to ‘unordered’, wild or unmaintained, commons. A well manicured park with statues of men of arts and letters is a pretty good place to be. 3- Not all commons are available for attention seeking, or attention-drawing, – and in fact that is what ‘sacred’ means. 4- Not all people possess the ability and training to respect sacred spaces, and they must be protected from such people.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. (CD: I would say that art consists of that which the actor intends to invest in obtaining attention by the expenditure of resources for the provision of aesthetic returns. in other words, we choose to invest in the aesthetics of any given craft (making) for the purpose of attention to the decoration of mind, time and space in all that term’s possible meanings.) Who defines what is art and what is not? – Consumers, viewers, participants. (CD: Um, I would say no, that art is what it is across the spectrum of childish to amateurish, to professional, to iconic, to revolutionary. I would say that craft, design, editorial, and art are very different things. i would say some people engage in fraud that takes advantage of consumer ignorance, and that the value of art is determined by long term market forces (what survives the competition between fashion and ignorance). (CD: many goods are brought to market, those that survive in the market survive, those that don’t do not. What is an attempt at art is defined above. what succeeds at art is determined by a series of markets, the most common of which is REFERENCE BY OTHER ARTIST: by imitation. Art is worthy of perception. – Perception costs are time and energy. (CD: the market determines whether it is worthy of perception, most art is not worthy of perception just like most products are not worthy of consumption. The difference is that it is easier to find a sucker for bad art than it is to find a sucker for a bad car, and far harder to find a sucker for a poorly tailored bit of clothing.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. Who defines what is art and what is not? Consumers, viewers, participants. Art is worthy of perception. Perception costs are time and labor. (CD: We would use a slighting different set of terms I suggest you adopt: Art competes for attention. Attention is a resource, consisting of time and energy. The returns on attention are either there, or they are not. Given that the returns vary from the free association the art causes for the individual, for people who see his possession of it, for public use, and for public ceremonial use, the chances of providing that return are highly dependent upon the craft, design, content, scale, of the piece. What you put in your bathroom, your guest bath, your living room, your office, a court building, and a church hold different standards.) Viewers perceive, recognize and set value on something. Perception and recognition cost time and labor. Similar to how consumers set prices. An act of art doesn’t exist because its up to it is a viewer value judgement. (CD: Hmmmm. Art is a product like any other. Books are a product like any other. tools are products like any other. You must undrestand the language and context of the book to buy and use it for returns. You must understand the possible operations and context of use of a tool to buy and use it for returns. ) (CD: the problem in your reasoning is as usual one of grammar. People create products. Those products serve a function or not (satisfy a market demand). Those products serve sufficient market demands to sell or not (provide marginal value necessary for incentive to exchange). Those exchanges(investments) survive the market for aesthetic competition over time, for the intended market whether individual, group, polity, world). Here is what you might be searching for: Public art of any kind is dependent on shares strategy, values, knowledge, and experience. Lacking those shared properties it is no longer possible to produce art that does not impose a cost instead of provide a return. Everything is open to economic analysis under propertarianism.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548697265 Timestamp) CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN You don’t really understand the debate of the war period, postwar period, any more than our debate in the present do you? lol.. I realize you are desperately trying to frame this discourse to suit your present knowledge but let’s point out a few things you’re doing besides that framing, the perpetuation of the error of the era (induction), reliance upon antique thought (set operations, idealisms), using conflation (‘meaning/justification’ vs ‘truth/testimony’) all of which are archaic (and false) methods of investigation of anything other than scripture. 1) When the positivists used the term “meaningful”, (giving us an exceptional demonstration of a failure of grammar), they meant meaningful for what purpose? (Induction). 2) What was the difference between Carnap and company’s position and Popper’s position? (Trying to solve the problem of induction vs Popper’s “Induction does not exist”.) (Not that Taleb isn’t beating this dead horse daily.) 3) What was Popper’s alternative to induction? (Verisimilitude, or more correctly: “market competition”). 4) What has the scientific field adopted as their method of exploration? (market competition). 5) What does a Bayesian network accomplish (accounting of marginal measurements producing market competition between successes and failures – the same as our brains do) 6) Why can’t a formal grammar of science be produced and why has the formal grammar of logic been a dead end except for training people to detect error? (because there is no closure, and because induction does not exist, and because the only unclosed vocabulary and grammar is operational language.) 7) What does an hypothesis, theory, law consist of? (A rule of arbitrary precision used as a search algorithm for opportunities to apply recipes – sequences of operations. Forming a market competition between general rule of opportunity discovery and application-recipe) (this is all the mind is capable of so it is what we do). 8) What is the principle innovation of the post darwinian era: the abandonment of ‘mathiness’ and justification and the universal application of market competition between positive language and demonstrated action. (we call this, dynamic stochastic equilibrium in economics, and various names not limited to fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics in physics.) 9) What do we do in court to determine who is at greater fault? (conduct a market competition between the offense and the defense by reduction of arguments to the sequence of incentives and operations). In a wonderful case of PAINFUL IRONY you are able to ‘get away’ with your error because you failed to define the term ‘meaning’ in a complete sentence in operational language. “I have a question: are untestable statements meaningful meaningful for the purpose of induction?” Well of course, no, because induction (guessing) only assists us in free association for the purpose of discovering opportunities which must later be subject to falsification (attempts to falsify), and through this continuous competition we discover more information (recipes for action, and opportunities for discovery), and with that information more competitions to run between language (search) and operation (action). So I continue the Poppertian program of “critical rationalism” (under which popper had no empirical evidence, or he would have discovered that decidability in scientific investigation is and can be, and is, determined by cost benefit) by expanding where he failed to ,from physical to social to cognitive sciences as “Critical Naturalism”. And I apply this critical naturalism to the field with the greatest scope of testing claims: law. Because law only comes into account under material disputes, and only admits that which is testifiable, and searches for incentives whether testifiable or not. The positivist debate was not merely ideal or technical but was an attempt to ether further (frankfurt) or constrain (vienna) marxism (theft), and the incentives tell us what the undecidability of their argument failed to: fraud. And this is the purpose of the law: Can we find criteria under which the untestifiable yet asserted to be testifiable is not a cover for a falsehood, fraud, theft or harm? ( Where ‘true’ = testimony(speech) that correspondent with reality(existence) or a possibly-shared experience of existence.) The positivist debate was a ‘victorian’ if not ‘priestly’ discourse in which the means motive and opportunity were unstated. Because we had no evidence of yet what would occur under marxism/socialism (or today’s postmodernism) to counter the rationalizations of the marxists (frankfurt school) who were, in all things, attempting to use the ancient tools of greek platonism/socratic skepticism, and jewish pilpul/critique, as had many previous generations of theologians and philosophers (textualists), to conduct a fraud, when there words were promissory (rational) not testifiable (scientific and warrantable). It is far harder to think in equilibrial terms in all walks of life, and all disciplines in thought, but this is the current model of all phenomenon from math (see Wolfram’s new math of complex operations), computer science (operational logic), sentience (cognition to defeat entropy), to discourse (language to defeat entropy) to economics(cooperation to defeat entropy), to biology (life defeating entropy), to chemistry (limited to entropy) to subatomic through macro physics(producing entropy). And this is why the discipline of philosophy is being unfunded and combined with theological departments, because other than the use of basic logic to train people to detect errors, the program of the 19th-20th by which philosophers sought to convert their discipline into a science, has been replaced by computer science and what used to be called ‘cognitive science’, in order to end the previous generation’s failure to adapt to computer science, and now failure to adapt to the study of the brain. The purpose of the study of philosophy is largely the study of middle class rebellion against the ruling class’s application of law or theology, and aside from the “scientists” aristotle, machiavelli, locke, smith, hume, darwin, maxwell, menger, pareto etc, they are little more than a catalog of human error and deceit, with The Rabbinical Jews, Plato/Socrates, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Mohammed, Kant, Marx, and now Derrida et all the most Metaphysics is nothing other than the study of cognitive processes. It is an ancient pseudoscience for the simple reason that Aristotle did the best he could, but knew too little and had no model, by which to discuss the operational construction of cognitive phenomenon from the stimulation of the nervous system, and the continuous recursive interaction between those stimuli and memory, producing a continuous stream of prediction, over which we have some modicum of control – and in particular, given our ability to use language, can calculate using language (names of categories) to perform comparisons that other life forms we are aware of are unable to do. However, in all our language, every bit of it, every name of every category of name (noun, verb, adjective, adverb…) consists of nothing more than an n-dimensional network of constant and contingent and inconstant relations between our senses, in a fascinating and beautiful complexity the scale of which is only matched by the stars themselves. The most parsimonious terms we have to describe these networks are Models (descriptive operational simulations), Networks of largely Compatible Paradigms (current information products), Competing incompatible Paradigms (new market entries), Theories and Hypotheses (new market features), Norms, Presumptions, and intuitions (established markets), and a field of ‘Grammars’ of deflationary to descriptive to inflationary to fictionalisms – and there is every bit of evidence to suggest that we can produce one most parsimonious paradigm in the grammar of constant relations we call operations, and their constant relations to existential reality. So when you say “an alternative metaphysics” this means an alternative physical cognitive ability. When you say “an alternative ontology” the question is one of competitive parsimony, correspondence, consequence, and incentive. No more sophisms. Science is the universal language of truth, even if there are a host of allegorical grammars for the communication of meaning. The question is what is the difference in meaning (information, consequence, and incentive) between the more testifiable, and every other alternative. And for any alternative, what is one’s incentive to produce that alternative? Is it the cost of reformation of one’s networks? Or is it the benefits one obtains through the use of those networks to create fraud?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548779115 Timestamp) UNDERSTAND: RELIGION IS THE HARDEST PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Because it is education and training of the intuition by suggestion using narrative, ritual, oath, and debt. And because the intuition is the lowest common denominator of decidability in a population, demanding the least reason, calculation, and calculation. We are not ignorant as we have been throughout history. What we call ‘spirituality’ is the evolutionary artifact of the reduction of cognitive, social, physical, and therefore emotional burden by submission to and membership in the pack(male bias) or herd (female bias), and the resulting feeling of peace, safety, and mindfulness that results from that submission (surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. The more agency, opportunity, experience, peace, safety, and mindfulness one has the lower the demand for the feeling of ‘spirituality’. The less agency, opportunity, experience, pace, safety and mindfulness on has, the greater the demand for the mindfulness that results from submission(surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. We cannot demand those lacking interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military market value survive without the training in mindfulness that makes possible individual, interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military cooperation with others and the benefits that come from it. That would be IRRECIPROCAL. However, we can at the same time limit the external agency of those who lack the agency and market value to use the political process to influence others where such an influence is against the natural law. By the demand for truthful speech in the commons in matters commercial, … we eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By eliminating the need for churches to obtain donations, we likewise eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By demanding the churches warranty their due diligence in the production of education in the personal, interpersonal, social, commercial, financial, economic, political, and military. This will have the effect of driving groups that are hostile to the natural law and to european civilization out of every aspect of life, and make ‘religions’ liable for the actions of their ‘products’: citizens.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1548812685 Timestamp) CAN WE BRING FAR RIGHT INFLUENCE TO THE WEST? “It all begins with the militia” Two news items today, that are important only in so far as they show that the Far Right, once mobilized can have extraordinary influence on political systems, with a small number of willing men intolerant of the status quo. ⢠Divisions sharpen inside Ukraineâs far-right camp as it fails to unite around a single presidential candidate, with National Corps refusing to support Svoboda’s candidate Ruslan Koshulynskyi. https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/divisions-between-ukraines-far-right-groups-sharpen-ahead-of-elections.html? ⢠The center of Kyiv rang to the sound of rifle and machine-gun fire on the night of Jan. 27, 2019 during a reenactment of the Battle for the Arsenal Factory organized by far-right and nationalist organizations. See our photo gallery. https://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/kyiv-echoes-to-sound-of-gunfire-as-battle-of-kruty-reenacted-photos?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548695357 Timestamp) FIXING INSTITUTIONALIZED LONELINESS by Michael Churchill You can look at loneliness in America and say it was bound to get to this point: Capitalism + mobile workforce + jobs in cities (so smart people all move away from home) + natural resistance to in-grouping by Northwestern Europeans + persecution of the productive minority (Northwestern Europeans) + the four economic changes that sparked feminism (birth control, mobility, ability of women to support themselves, technological change that liberated women from the household drudgery). It almost HAD to come to this point in America. Now we get to fix it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548777714 Timestamp) THE PRESERVATION OF CHRISTIANITY AS A POLITICAL RELIGION, AND THE RESTORATION OF PAGAN AND HEATHEN CULTURAL RELIGION UNDER THE NATURAL LAW. (I don’t want to interfere in Maximus’ thread, because he certainly doesn’t need my help in arguing propertarian natural law, but I like the suggestion that I should do a video. I have already done the subject with our favorite Aussie, and I will do the video now that you bring it up. Let’s understand these facts. 1 – Christianity teaches natural law – just poorly. 2 – Christianity teaches (exhaustive tit-for-tat) optimum IN-GROUP strategy as an extension of natural law – but does do poorly, and because it does so poorly – does not limit to kin, (is universalist (outgroup)) and therefore a mixture of good and bad. 3 – Christianity made us, particularly our women, vulnerable to marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, because these three ‘replacement religions’ are communicated by the same false promise and sophomoric argument, but 4 – The evidence is that christianity produces prosperity wherever it goes, but is a higher demand than Islam, like judaism is a higher demand than christianity. But the fact remains that western people still retain both Legal (roman) intellectual (greek), familial (heathen european), and political(semitic) ‘cults’. And these cults are all reflections of our classes. And all of the classes make use of what set of cults is necessary for cooperation at their level of agency.(ability to act). 5 – The purpose of christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, was to destroy the empirical, rational, military, legal, and commercial order and replace it with Egyptian, south semitic, north semitic, and Persian means of ruling an underclass through false promises (life after death), false debt(‘for our sins”, “original sins”) using supernatural frauds in the ancient world, and using economic (marxist), social (postmodern), and political (feminism and multiculturalism) in the modern world. My understanding is that especially among those who will fight, christianity must be accommodated, and the law says that it can be accommodated because among religions it teaches natural law. Evidence is that churches are emptying. Particularly in mixed areas. and you haven’t seen the law on religion I’m proposing yet, so you don’t know that I’m suggesting restoring the economy to the church and restoring competition with the state – under certain conditions. And i’m also suggesting how any of our ‘natural religions’ can obtain this same cultural, economic, political centrality once again, by providing particularly powerful incentives, including restoring education and educational funding to ‘churches’ in the broadest sense (and ending centralized education). (in other words, prohibiting falsehood is different from demanding certain skills). Under these incentives I believe our religions will slowly (possibly rapidly) migrate away from falsehood to truthfulness due to incentives of (a) simple economics (b) increasing vastly their influence, (c) defending themselves from the state. In other words, ‘let nature take its course’, and keep the state out of christian faith, and keep christian faith out of TRUTH CLAIMS. This sets up a market for the three categories of religion, while providing mindfulness. A christian can say “i hold [xxxx] as a matter of faith, I do not claim it is true, because what is true must be open to testimony, and Faith itself is not open to testimony. As long as I do not try to use truth claims (arguments) in matters commercial, financial, economic, and political, then I have not broken the law.” One cannot claim something false is true for the purpose of induction (consequential argument). And in particular (islam/judaism/catholicism) because one may not claim there is any law other than the natural law (no competitor). And one may not advocate a religion that is duplicitous because of that (Judaism and Islam are duplicitous and poly-ethical.). With the prohibition on judaism and islam, the preservation of christianity due to its natural law, the universal education in stoicism (mindfulness), and the combination of christian and european (heathen) festivals, my understanding is that we will see our religion return to its natural condition where the poor are christian, the middle ancestral (heathen), an the upper-classes, as always, purely empirical and giving respect to the middle and lower through participation in oath, ritual and festival. So it is not so much that we need to end Christianity, as it is we need to create a range of churches (wholistic mindfulness, socialization, and education) that will serve the interest of the different classes In content, while the same underlying constraint on adherence to natural law. In other words, we must make a practical accommodation for faith in those who need faith because they have no alternative to faith for the purpose of obtaining that mindfulness necessary in a complex society in which many of us lack the familial, social, economic, political relations, as well as perhaps the genetics to provide value in social, economic, and political markets. So there is ‘something for everyone at a cost to everyone’ in my proposal. But it is hard to argue against the cllection of goods. we know this because while people will claim they are christian, go to church, celebrate festivals, take oaths, abide by rules, they will very rarely, under oath, claim such things are true. All humans follow interests. They follow interests becasue it is in their interests. And they use propaganda an arugment and belief to justify the pursuit of those interests. This is a small part of a very complex subject, and was the most complex subject I had to tackle with. Religion is the hard problem of social science, because it is, in the end, education in the ability of people to work in harmony with their intuitions as animals and in harmony with each other in groups, and therefore reach personal, familial, social, economic, political, and military benefits from one another.)