IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST?
I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense.
People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick.
And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism.
People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience.
We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts.
It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem.
Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents.
So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative?
Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat).
Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth?
If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam)
If it will save your civilization?
if it will save mankind?
I think so.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Rule of Law = Non-Discretion
Apr 24, 2017 9:50am Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law. One cannot have rule of law, and at the same time, command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation, because command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation are discretionary. Nomocracy: Government by Rule of Law. How is a nomocracy possible without command, legislation, regulation and judicial interpretation? Markets in everything: Markets for participation, association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and dispute resolution. But how do we provide decidability in all those markets? Reciprocity. Why? Because reciprocity always provides decidability.
-
Rule of Law = Non-Discretion
Apr 24, 2017 9:50am Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law. One cannot have rule of law, and at the same time, command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation, because command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation are discretionary. Nomocracy: Government by Rule of Law. How is a nomocracy possible without command, legislation, regulation and judicial interpretation? Markets in everything: Markets for participation, association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and dispute resolution. But how do we provide decidability in all those markets? Reciprocity. Why? Because reciprocity always provides decidability.
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
Make Parasitism Unprofitable Through Punishment
MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT 1) You don’t argue with ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, socialists, and feminists. 2) You prosecute them. You point out that they’re liars, parasites, thieves. 3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary. When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop. As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue. So: Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign. Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman. There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy: The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Make Parasitism Unprofitable Through Punishment
MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT 1) You don’t argue with ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, socialists, and feminists. 2) You prosecute them. You point out that they’re liars, parasites, thieves. 3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary. When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop. As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue. So: Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign. Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman. There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy: The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Our Law – The Only Law We Need
Apr 25, 2017 11:29am OUR LAW – THE ONLY LAW WE NEED. Natural Law is our ‘Bible’. The law beyond which no man may tread. The law beyond which our violence is no longer bound by reciprocity. Natural Law is the answer to the lies of the lies of the mystics and the abrahamists and all their descendants: the jews, the christians, the muslims, the marxists, socialists, postmodernists, progressives, feminists: the people who lie, cheat, and steal. These people lie. They must. There is only one law, and the universe is written in it: the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony, and the laws of sentience. There is only one means of transcendence: the mastery of the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony:truthfulness, the laws of sentience. To deny these laws is to deny man transcendence. To deny man transcendence is a crime against all men who have come before us, and all men who have yet to be. And, until we know that we are not first, and not alone in this universe, it is a crime against the universe, and the gods that may or may not be. We are unbound by all constraints other than Natural Law, and, we must, if we are to transcend, rid our lives, our nations, this earth, and the universe, of those who would violate that law. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Law of Nature: Natural Law
-
Our Law – The Only Law We Need
Apr 25, 2017 11:29am OUR LAW – THE ONLY LAW WE NEED. Natural Law is our ‘Bible’. The law beyond which no man may tread. The law beyond which our violence is no longer bound by reciprocity. Natural Law is the answer to the lies of the lies of the mystics and the abrahamists and all their descendants: the jews, the christians, the muslims, the marxists, socialists, postmodernists, progressives, feminists: the people who lie, cheat, and steal. These people lie. They must. There is only one law, and the universe is written in it: the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony, and the laws of sentience. There is only one means of transcendence: the mastery of the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony:truthfulness, the laws of sentience. To deny these laws is to deny man transcendence. To deny man transcendence is a crime against all men who have come before us, and all men who have yet to be. And, until we know that we are not first, and not alone in this universe, it is a crime against the universe, and the gods that may or may not be. We are unbound by all constraints other than Natural Law, and, we must, if we are to transcend, rid our lives, our nations, this earth, and the universe, of those who would violate that law. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Law of Nature: Natural Law
-
Moral (Usage)
MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.