We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Whose Side Are You On?
I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
-
Whose Side Are You On?
I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
-
The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.
Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.
-
The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.
Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.
-
Who Else Teaches Sovereignty? No One.
Look: our ancestors organized the west to produce agency because agency is required for fellow sovereigns. If you look at every other culture and civilization, what is it that those groups attempt to produce? Does islam teach agency? Does Confucianism? Does judaism? Does buddhism?
-
Who Else Teaches Sovereignty? No One.
Look: our ancestors organized the west to produce agency because agency is required for fellow sovereigns. If you look at every other culture and civilization, what is it that those groups attempt to produce? Does islam teach agency? Does Confucianism? Does judaism? Does buddhism?
-
Libertarians are Beggars for Liberty
Libertarians are beggars for liberty. I’ve stopped using the term liberty. I’m not a beggar, or a free rider. I understand now that the only method of obtaining liberty is permission, and the only means of obtaining the equivalent without permission is sovereignty; and that sovereignty in fact can only be brought into existence by sovereign peers through reciprocal insurance: a militia. Aristocracy creates sovereignty by force. Because it is undesirable by the masses of parasites who either prefer parasitism or are a dead weight upon the rest of us.
-
Libertarians are Beggars for Liberty
Libertarians are beggars for liberty. I’ve stopped using the term liberty. I’m not a beggar, or a free rider. I understand now that the only method of obtaining liberty is permission, and the only means of obtaining the equivalent without permission is sovereignty; and that sovereignty in fact can only be brought into existence by sovereign peers through reciprocal insurance: a militia. Aristocracy creates sovereignty by force. Because it is undesirable by the masses of parasites who either prefer parasitism or are a dead weight upon the rest of us.
-
This Is the Final Word on Hoppeian Ancapism
A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ As far as I know, this is the final word on Hoppe. And unless or until he answers these objections (he won’t because he cant) we must separate Hoppe’s CONCLUSIONS from his JUSTIFICATIONS. In other words, once we reduce all social science to reciprocity and the voluntary exchange of property, we can deduce all of social science, ethics, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and law, from that reduction. However, his justifications (excuses, arguments) are nonsense up and until that point. I learned the most important ideas from him: the use of property as the unit of measure in the creation of a formal logic of natural law. However, I use science and scientific epistemology where he uses marxist and kantian rationalism: the sources of Marxist communism and socialism and social democracy, rothbardian libertinism, and Straussian neo-conservatism. If hoppe would debate me on this we would be able to illustrate that in three generations, between a jew, a german, and an anglo, we solved the second attempt at discovery of social science. But like most men he cannot (as rothbard did) accept that his most treasured justifications are only one degree removed from kantian rationals, as rothbard is one degree removed from jewish pilpul. The language of truth is science. It just took the three generations of us to complete the second scientific revolution. One that the germans started, but was cut short by the world wars.