Well lets take that criticism further: due to dunning kreuger effect, just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities. And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. That means that fundamental truths must be articulated in a different language for about every 15 points of IQ (standard deviation) and in life this is exactly what we see. So any sufficiently advanced concept will be impossible to voluntarily accept into one’s framework unless it is converted into lanague (analogy to experience) that is within the ability of an individual to experience. We do not limit truths to that which teh common man can experience. We seek to create tools by which the common man can experience it given his limited abilities to experience that which he cannot directly percieve. I have said all along that I am not sure I am capable of reducing my language to that of the common man, and I have struggled very hard to reduce it to digestible form for the uncommon man. But there are others who will happily take this technology and transform it for their subordinate groups. I am pretty confident that propertarianism is revolutionary on the scale of Hume and Darwin. And while both those men are better authors than I am, if Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Heidegger can be reduced from abstraction to policy then certainly propertarianism and testimonialism can be. After all. in the end the principles are simple: 1) We constitute a division of perception and cognition as well as labor, and it is through voluntary cooperation that we make use of the specialized perception of each. 2) The law of non imposition is sufficient for the rational decidability of all conflicts among men. This law can be incrementally discovered as we incrementally evolve our knowledge and deceit, productivity and parasitism, private property and commons, cooperation and conflict. 3) We domesticated man by the centralization of rents, and then further domesticate man by the suppression of centralized rents both of which are accomplished by the opposing arts of competition in the market, and juridical defense via common law, under natural law, insured by reciprocal warranty, where that warranty is provided by the promise of violence. 4) there are three methods of coercion which we can use for ill or good in the creation or disorder or order. and men learn to specialize in them, and we develop class hierarchies in each: violence, remuneration, and gossip. These three groups roughly battle for political control and it is this constant conflict that assists us in adaptation to different circumstances. Liberty and truth keep us flexible enough to adapt to any circumstance using the specializations of any of those three classes. Ergo they are not a hierarchy but competitors. 5) We could not mandate truth because as we developed greater knowledge the means of deceit (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism) exceeded our ability to defeat them with the common law. But today we CAN know how to defeat them by demanding the same warranties of due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we demand of goods and services in the market for consumption and commons. Testimonialism gives us sufficient criteria for putting into the common natural law, the method by which we must speak truthfully in order to prevent harm(imposition of costs) by externality. Now does everyone need to understand all these things and their consequences? No. They need instruction in grammar, rhetoric, and testimony: the art of warrantying that one does no harm when speaking in public. This does not mean we cannot err. It means only that we must provide due diligence to intellectual products just as we provide due diligence for goods and services rendered. Since we did much of this in the past when our science and public speech was limited largely to direct interpersonal experience, there is no reason we cannot teach one to do the same to indirect impersonal experience of cooperation in the broader market. This is all entirely possible. Whether liars, parasites, and rent seekers will like the fact that they can no longer speak without due diligence is something else. People do not need to agree to truth. It just is. People do not need to agree to common or natural law, it just is. Only under democracy do we care about majority opinion. Liberty is constructed by elites who refuse to tolerate the alternatives. So we must merely not tolerate the alternatives.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Virtue of Disorder
Disorder is merely an opportunity to obtain a discount on the high cost of constructing an alternative order. Great strategists accumulate resources with which to create and exploit opportunities. Fools rush headlong into battles.
-
The Virtue of Disorder
Disorder is merely an opportunity to obtain a discount on the high cost of constructing an alternative order. Great strategists accumulate resources with which to create and exploit opportunities. Fools rush headlong into battles.
-
The Place For Religious Argument
There is no authority in religious wisdom, only advice – despite the demand of clerics and devotees. The use of religious, moral, historical and empirical argument is always the same:
In the absence of clear choices, if the empirical fails, the historical fails, then the moral and religious are the best-tested experience that we can rely upon. The meek will not inherit the earth. But for the meek it is good wisdom that they should act in their long term interests anyway, as it will always, as a group, advance their interests against the strong. There is no authority other than consequence. Consequence in the now, soon, later, and long term. -
The Place For Religious Argument
There is no authority in religious wisdom, only advice – despite the demand of clerics and devotees. The use of religious, moral, historical and empirical argument is always the same:
In the absence of clear choices, if the empirical fails, the historical fails, then the moral and religious are the best-tested experience that we can rely upon. The meek will not inherit the earth. But for the meek it is good wisdom that they should act in their long term interests anyway, as it will always, as a group, advance their interests against the strong. There is no authority other than consequence. Consequence in the now, soon, later, and long term. -
We Are Equal In Our Tribal Capacity For Transcendence
There are good Jews bad Jews, good Christians, bad Christians, good and bad in each race, and good and bad everyone. A quote from my favorite Rabbi and a man I love dearly, and always will. We can use the positive or we can exercise the negative. In the matters of good and bad, we can suppress parasitism, and advance our family and tribe. We need not treat groups as negative, only seek to advance our kin as a positive.The logical conflict occurs whenever any group attempts to assert universalism. But any universalism (equality) will sort groups into natural orders according to the median of their abilities – and force them to function by those natural orders according to the median of their abilities. The only universal law of cooperation between groups is not to force others to bear costs, while advancing your kin toward transcendence. The mandate that we are in fact equal forces us not to be. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine–COMMENTS–Curt, While it would appear he who specialize in both the “visible efficiencies” and “invisible vulnerabilities”. Or the nation – state that does, would very likely be better placed to equilibrate indicatively and so anticipate, prevent, mitigate theconsequential fall were there to be unfavourable imbalance, which do you think is the least costly of the alternate two: √ Strength, specialisation in the visible efficiencies. While unable to accurately map the invisible weaknesses of the individual, a corporation, nation – state, empire. √ Visible efficiency deficiencies while strong, considerable expert in invisible vulnerability per person, a given corporation, nation – state, empire.—–(damn, you write elegantly.) I don’t know if I agree with the dichotomy. I would say that at all times one needs the strength to prevent external conquests or internal rents, while still producing commons. It is very clear that the centralization of rents is necessary to pay for the local suppression of rents, thereby freeing property and trade. it is very clear that it is hard to prevent the centralization of rents (fees, taxes or whatever) from internal parasitism, and it appears militaries do this better than political and commercial ordganizations. Or rather that militaries do it best, commercial less so, and political terribly. It is also very clear that once the internal rents are established that it is equally difficult to suppress them by converting from monopoly rent beuraucdracy to competitive service providing privatization. It is also not clear that total conversion from monopolistic to competitive is as advantageous as we theorized. And instead that a mix of private public funding, outsourced management, limited competition, and a judiciary with universal standing for defense by the population, seems to be a complex, expensive, yet optimum solution. So like any evolutionary system we must grow from simple to complex over time with only one ambition: elminate all parasitism while continuing to produce commons. -
We Are Equal In Our Tribal Capacity For Transcendence
There are good Jews bad Jews, good Christians, bad Christians, good and bad in each race, and good and bad everyone. A quote from my favorite Rabbi and a man I love dearly, and always will. We can use the positive or we can exercise the negative. In the matters of good and bad, we can suppress parasitism, and advance our family and tribe. We need not treat groups as negative, only seek to advance our kin as a positive.The logical conflict occurs whenever any group attempts to assert universalism. But any universalism (equality) will sort groups into natural orders according to the median of their abilities – and force them to function by those natural orders according to the median of their abilities. The only universal law of cooperation between groups is not to force others to bear costs, while advancing your kin toward transcendence. The mandate that we are in fact equal forces us not to be. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine–COMMENTS–Curt, While it would appear he who specialize in both the “visible efficiencies” and “invisible vulnerabilities”. Or the nation – state that does, would very likely be better placed to equilibrate indicatively and so anticipate, prevent, mitigate theconsequential fall were there to be unfavourable imbalance, which do you think is the least costly of the alternate two: √ Strength, specialisation in the visible efficiencies. While unable to accurately map the invisible weaknesses of the individual, a corporation, nation – state, empire. √ Visible efficiency deficiencies while strong, considerable expert in invisible vulnerability per person, a given corporation, nation – state, empire.—–(damn, you write elegantly.) I don’t know if I agree with the dichotomy. I would say that at all times one needs the strength to prevent external conquests or internal rents, while still producing commons. It is very clear that the centralization of rents is necessary to pay for the local suppression of rents, thereby freeing property and trade. it is very clear that it is hard to prevent the centralization of rents (fees, taxes or whatever) from internal parasitism, and it appears militaries do this better than political and commercial ordganizations. Or rather that militaries do it best, commercial less so, and political terribly. It is also very clear that once the internal rents are established that it is equally difficult to suppress them by converting from monopoly rent beuraucdracy to competitive service providing privatization. It is also not clear that total conversion from monopolistic to competitive is as advantageous as we theorized. And instead that a mix of private public funding, outsourced management, limited competition, and a judiciary with universal standing for defense by the population, seems to be a complex, expensive, yet optimum solution. So like any evolutionary system we must grow from simple to complex over time with only one ambition: elminate all parasitism while continuing to produce commons. -
Natural Law Isn’t Complicated
Imagine you visit a totally alien island, and have no knowledge of manners, ethics, morals, traditions myths, rituals, laws, institutions, and metaphysical value judgments. History is replete with the difficulty of establishing communication, trust, cooperation, trade, and especially, non-conflict.
But because of natural laws we can start from the lowest methods of communication: giving gifts, and avoiding threats, while maintaining capable defense. It is these lowest common denominators that we refer to with ‘natural law’. *Impose no cost, nor threaten to impose a cost, upon those who have expended efforts in the accumulation of whatever reproductive, productive, institutional, and territorial assets that they have. -
Natural Law Isn’t Complicated
Imagine you visit a totally alien island, and have no knowledge of manners, ethics, morals, traditions myths, rituals, laws, institutions, and metaphysical value judgments. History is replete with the difficulty of establishing communication, trust, cooperation, trade, and especially, non-conflict.
But because of natural laws we can start from the lowest methods of communication: giving gifts, and avoiding threats, while maintaining capable defense. It is these lowest common denominators that we refer to with ‘natural law’. *Impose no cost, nor threaten to impose a cost, upon those who have expended efforts in the accumulation of whatever reproductive, productive, institutional, and territorial assets that they have. -
The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government
(important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine