NOTES: (General Criticisms, not of Prof Toombs, but in general, of the 20th-century social pseudosciences including that of economics and law. The interesting question is why did we begin pseudosciences in parallel with darwin and why did we evolve so many pseudosciences in the postwar period? ) 1. “Correctly Describe How The Engine Works” = Circular Argument(sophistry). “Why do we need an engine at all?” = Science (Decidability). 2. Natural Law = Cooperation = Self Determination, Sovereignty, Reciprocity (Law) – within the limits of Proportionality (Legislation). That’s science. Everything else requires the starting point where were are not sovereign, but some degree of slave or serf. 3. Natural Law = Science = Rule of Law, where each of us is sovereign and where legislation consists in, and is limited to, contracts between sovereigns: where sovereignty are the commons equivalent of private-sector shareholders: investors by demonstrated behavior. 4. Positive Law = Sophistry = Rule by Men, where each of us is serf, and legislation consists of command by others who are sovereign. It’s not complicated. 5. Rule of Law where we are sovereign and have the right to self-determination… if we choose. Otherwise, we must be freemen, serfs, or ‘slaves’. It’s not an opinion. It’s simply a fact. Versus Rule by Man, absence of sovereignty, and reciprocity. 6. The violation of our history of a hierarchy of man, family, serfdom > MANOR LAW. Freeman > Common Law. Sovereign > Court Law. 7. So there exists an enlightenment demand for the security of Manor Law (serfdom) in conflict with the demand for common law (freemen) and court law (citizens). The enlightenment ‘one class of everyone’ is as ridiculous as the Marxist, and libertarian and liberal ‘one class of everyone’. We need three economies, and three sets of laws, in a hierarchy if we are to have a diverse population no longer pacified by centuries of northern European or east Asian Manorialism and Credit Service both of which suppressed the reproduction of those unfit for markets. 8. Failure to understand why the west evolves so much faster than the rest of mankind leads to failure to understand that our law was the cause of that rapid adaptation – because it fosters maximum calculation by trial and error of means of advancement. 9. The western law is the most hyper-adaptive because it has the lowest friction and the least abstraction. 10. FWIW: Raz, Kelsen, Dworkin, and Hart are not culturally European but from a subculture that relies on POSITIVE LAW: Rule by Judges (Kritarchy). Not rule of Law (sovereignty). Smith+Locke > {Blackstone + Jefferson + Adams et al) > (Hayek + Epstein) VERSUS: Hobbes > { Anglo: Austin + Bentham } > { Germans: Schmidt et al } > Jews { Raz, Kelsen, Hartt, Dworkin etc} … maybe the Russians are next in the sequence of continuing the empirical spread of anglo empiricism and the culture-by-culture attempt to justify authority instead … thus repeating with democracy the continuous war against the usurpation of the natural law (traditional, common, germanic) by kings. It’s no different today than in the past.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The question of why we obey the law is immaterial – the question of why we do not overthrow the system of laws is not.
Survival … Action … … Self Determination … … … Natural Law (Science) … … … … Rule of Law (Science) … … … … … Rights, Obligations, and Inalienations (Science) … … … … … … Constitutional Law (Procedure) … … … … … … … Legislation (Contracts) … … … … … … … … Regulation (Implementation) … … … … … … … … … Judgements (Application) … … … … … … … … … … Contracts (Agreements) … … … … … … … … … … … Choices (actions) … … … … … … … … … … … … Individuals
-
The question of why we obey the law is immaterial – the question of why we do not overthrow the system of laws is not.
Survival … Action … … Self Determination … … … Natural Law (Science) … … … … Rule of Law (Science) … … … … … Rights, Obligations, and Inalienations (Science) … … … … … … Constitutional Law (Procedure) … … … … … … … Legislation (Contracts) … … … … … … … … Regulation (Implementation) … … … … … … … … … Judgements (Application) … … … … … … … … … … Contracts (Agreements) … … … … … … … … … … … Choices (actions) … … … … … … … … … … … … Individuals
-
Ron Paul – Does anyone have the right to appreciation of the value of currency? Or even the stability of the price of Currency?
–“How can a government, that’s $28 trillion in debt, spend trillions of dollars that it does not have? Well, one major way is the Federal Reserve creates money-out-of-thin-air and then ‘loans’ it to the government by buying the government’s bonds.”– Ron Paul
RON: Serious Questions: 1) What right do savers have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a fiat currency? 2) What right do lenders have to the preservation of the purchasing power of debt+interest? If these gains are obtained at the expense of supply. AFAIK, none. 4) Why does anyone have a right to produce an artificial scarcity? 5) the only answer to this question is: … a) contractual frictions created for business velocity (production cycles), … and; … b) friction on the ability to save for retirement. So 6) Is (a) true? And can (b) be solved? Science not philosophy, ideology, or sophistry.
-
Ron Paul – Does anyone have the right to appreciation of the value of currency? Or even the stability of the price of Currency?
–“How can a government, that’s $28 trillion in debt, spend trillions of dollars that it does not have? Well, one major way is the Federal Reserve creates money-out-of-thin-air and then ‘loans’ it to the government by buying the government’s bonds.”– Ron Paul
RON: Serious Questions: 1) What right do savers have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a fiat currency? 2) What right do lenders have to the preservation of the purchasing power of debt+interest? If these gains are obtained at the expense of supply. AFAIK, none. 4) Why does anyone have a right to produce an artificial scarcity? 5) the only answer to this question is: … a) contractual frictions created for business velocity (production cycles), … and; … b) friction on the ability to save for retirement. So 6) Is (a) true? And can (b) be solved? Science not philosophy, ideology, or sophistry.
-
IQ is just as scientific, just as accurate, and just as descriptive as high or speed of running.
IQ attempts to measure (g) which is your neurological response time. That’s it. It’s very simple. How much information does it take for you to identify a pattern and evolve a neurological connection before exhaustion of the pathways? It’s that simple. IQ is a predictor of not FAILING. Conscientiousness is more influential in success. We have this emphasis backwards. We have at least four faculties: Body, Intuition(Brain), Conscientiousness(Mind), and Intelligence(Reason), You can train body (fitness), brain (anti-neuroticism(mindfulness)), conscientiousness (discipline), and intelligence (education) – and we don’t – we pretend that people don’t need training in every one of those faculties. They don’t fudge the data. The bell curve is a the normal distribution (a natural limit due to biological ability). That’s what we see in the data. The psychometricians alter the sets of questions so that they each produce a normal distribution in a population. Otherwise, the test would accumulate bias. They don’t accumulate bias because they alter the questions so that they produce a normal distribution that describes people without bias. And no, there is no subjectivity in these tests, they are painfully objective and the very best measure in psychology. People just confuse the difference between general rate of learning (IQ) and time at a context (experience). IQ will always win over time, but only OVER time. The tests measure neurological response time (reaction time) in every single dimension we have been able to discover as a faculty in the brain. The brain is just a neural network. Some neural networks “have better road quality than others, so stimulation gets better mileage.”
So people of the same relative age tend to cluster by their neurological response time. As such IQ = Score of accumulated patterns averaged across verbal and spatial, and then divided by age, to accommodate for experience gained by age. It’s simple, it works, always. Period. The difference between the races is a fact, but that fact can be abused. We know why the races evolved different intelligence. The information has been ‘canceled’ since the second world war. And ‘woke’ is a continuation of that process of ‘canceling’ the truth. We know why the differences between races: Self Domestication > Domestication Syndrome > Noteny > Slower Development > Greater Head-body Ratio > Bigger Brain > Less impulsive behavior > higher metabolism. Science is done. The debate is over. Now we have to solve the problem.
IQ is not a social construct nor is race. IQ is the most scientific measure that we have. And the difference in the races is due to different degrees of self-domestication over the past 50 thousand years. Attached diagram Race diffs in underclasses unfit for market modernity.
There is no cure for the class difference between whites-asians vs blacks-browns. Unless blacks-browns return to producing their own elites,financial class, middle class, the community will remain a permanent underclass while the upper brown-black continues to ‘defect’ to whites.
-
IQ is just as scientific, just as accurate, and just as descriptive as high or speed of running.
IQ attempts to measure (g) which is your neurological response time. That’s it. It’s very simple. How much information does it take for you to identify a pattern and evolve a neurological connection before exhaustion of the pathways? It’s that simple. IQ is a predictor of not FAILING. Conscientiousness is more influential in success. We have this emphasis backwards. We have at least four faculties: Body, Intuition(Brain), Conscientiousness(Mind), and Intelligence(Reason), You can train body (fitness), brain (anti-neuroticism(mindfulness)), conscientiousness (discipline), and intelligence (education) – and we don’t – we pretend that people don’t need training in every one of those faculties. They don’t fudge the data. The bell curve is a the normal distribution (a natural limit due to biological ability). That’s what we see in the data. The psychometricians alter the sets of questions so that they each produce a normal distribution in a population. Otherwise, the test would accumulate bias. They don’t accumulate bias because they alter the questions so that they produce a normal distribution that describes people without bias. And no, there is no subjectivity in these tests, they are painfully objective and the very best measure in psychology. People just confuse the difference between general rate of learning (IQ) and time at a context (experience). IQ will always win over time, but only OVER time. The tests measure neurological response time (reaction time) in every single dimension we have been able to discover as a faculty in the brain. The brain is just a neural network. Some neural networks “have better road quality than others, so stimulation gets better mileage.”
So people of the same relative age tend to cluster by their neurological response time. As such IQ = Score of accumulated patterns averaged across verbal and spatial, and then divided by age, to accommodate for experience gained by age. It’s simple, it works, always. Period. The difference between the races is a fact, but that fact can be abused. We know why the races evolved different intelligence. The information has been ‘canceled’ since the second world war. And ‘woke’ is a continuation of that process of ‘canceling’ the truth. We know why the differences between races: Self Domestication > Domestication Syndrome > Noteny > Slower Development > Greater Head-body Ratio > Bigger Brain > Less impulsive behavior > higher metabolism. Science is done. The debate is over. Now we have to solve the problem.
IQ is not a social construct nor is race. IQ is the most scientific measure that we have. And the difference in the races is due to different degrees of self-domestication over the past 50 thousand years. Attached diagram Race diffs in underclasses unfit for market modernity.
There is no cure for the class difference between whites-asians vs blacks-browns. Unless blacks-browns return to producing their own elites,financial class, middle class, the community will remain a permanent underclass while the upper brown-black continues to ‘defect’ to whites.
-
The Difference Between Legal Theorists
Note to Jeffrey Kaplan – USC; Jeffrey – I doubt few people, whether in the audience or even in the discipline, understand how well you communicate this subject. We should note that these theorists: Bentham, Austin, Rez, Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin, and Rawls all justify (make excuses) for positive law (commands). While Blackstone Hayek, Epstein, and Scalia are all making scientific explanations of the law. And does the audience know the difference between the justificationary (sophistry) and the scientific (operational)? It’s that the scientific explanation (European) forces the population to use the legislature to ADAPT, and the law and court limit the legislature and thereby the people to ADAPTATION rather than accommodation (command). This is the difference between command and law: command (justification) is cumulatively devolutionary, and law (science) is cumulatively evolutionary. In this context, we see why western states remained small and never fell to empire as did the rest of the world into civilization states: the pressure to continuously evolve by continuous adversarial competition forcing continuous personal, social, and political adaptation. And legal positivism has been the reason for the collapse of western civilization in the industrial and especially postwar age: we are no longer forcing the population to adapt, but finding excuses for maladaptation and devolution.
-
The Difference Between Legal Theorists
Note to Jeffrey Kaplan – USC; Jeffrey – I doubt few people, whether in the audience or even in the discipline, understand how well you communicate this subject. We should note that these theorists: Bentham, Austin, Rez, Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin, and Rawls all justify (make excuses) for positive law (commands). While Blackstone Hayek, Epstein, and Scalia are all making scientific explanations of the law. And does the audience know the difference between the justificationary (sophistry) and the scientific (operational)? It’s that the scientific explanation (European) forces the population to use the legislature to ADAPT, and the law and court limit the legislature and thereby the people to ADAPTATION rather than accommodation (command). This is the difference between command and law: command (justification) is cumulatively devolutionary, and law (science) is cumulatively evolutionary. In this context, we see why western states remained small and never fell to empire as did the rest of the world into civilization states: the pressure to continuously evolve by continuous adversarial competition forcing continuous personal, social, and political adaptation. And legal positivism has been the reason for the collapse of western civilization in the industrial and especially postwar age: we are no longer forcing the population to adapt, but finding excuses for maladaptation and devolution.
-
Science is a method for producing testimony – and nothing else. The problem has
Science is a method for producing testimony – and nothing else. The problem has been defining that method and doing so unambiguously. When we disambiguate that method we find the court, judge, jury, and law standing there waiting for us all along. Europeans discovered science our law was scientific.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-20 19:20:32 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106444674302826527