– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Source: Original Site Post
-
Limits Of Political Action
No political action may be taken that is not reversible. Or framed alternatively: no action may be taken that one cannot pay restitution for the consequences. Or framed alternately: no government had the right to pursue immigration.
-
Limits Of Political Action
No political action may be taken that is not reversible. Or framed alternatively: no action may be taken that one cannot pay restitution for the consequences. Or framed alternately: no government had the right to pursue immigration.
-
The Subtle Cause Of Differences In Races And Tribes
The ethnically Dutch are definitely the ‘master tribe’ by any empirical measure. The ethnically north sea (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and North Germans) are an obvious distance behind. If for no other reason than there is greater territorial distance between them and the less evolved people (resistance to invasive genes), and the difficulty of surviving long winters ( selection ), and the combination of late marriage, voluntary mate selection, and near breeding (selection), culling (hanging, starvation, and war). The celts ( my mother’s relations, and that of most of Britons ) get to ride-along like the Franks, and the eastern Europeans. But its pretty simple really: Selective breeding over longer periods of time with less of the genes from the sunshine latitudes. Evolution progresses upward under lower population density and dysgenia spreads in high population density. This is fairly obvious but that there should be a balance in order to preserve the human condition is something that limits us, and we dislike it. Someone sent me a map the other day, that showed genders of western Europeans (r1b, r1a) to be about equally attractive on average(forests: cattle farmers), eastern European females on average to be more attractive than males (Polish Ukrainian Russian), and, along with the increase in black hair, southeastern europeans to be less attractive on average, and middle easterners (turks, iranians, Jews, and Arabs) to be much less attractive on average. This assessment does not include north Africans, black Africans, the caucasian people of India, or the east and southeast Asians. But if I look at it as a very simple question of (a) degree of sexual immaturity or maturity, (b) degree of sexual dimorphism, then these two axes reflect both differences in testosterone and estrogen, and differences in sexual maturity. – Southeast Asians have lower sexual maturity, lower sexual dimorphism that’s slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – East Asians have lower sexual maturity and lower sexual dimorphism, slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – Eastern and Southern Slavs have lower sexual maturity, (hence the jawline), and higher female dimorphism. Women slightly more desirable than men. – Germanic Whites have lower sexual maturity (prolonged adolescence) and higher sexual dimorphism. Men and women equally desirable. – The Iranian/jewish branch (vs the celt/germanpolish/ukrainian branch), and the arab and berber branches, have higher sexual maturity but level sexual dimorphism. (male emotionalism, females with strong male features). Men more desirable than women. – The black africans have very high and fast sexual maturity, superior strength and agility. and masculine slanted sexual dimorphism. High inequality of desirability between women and men. CAN TWO AXIS EXPLAIN ALMOST EVERYTHING? Lets illustrate using two well-understood extremes: female solipsism and male autism. Women tend toward the solipsistic and men the autistic. Men tend toward the spatio-physical(models and systems), and women to the verbal (individuals and experiences). Rates of maturity reduce time in childhood and adolescence for learning. Rates of maturity increase impulsivity. Search for novelty increases THE DATA We see this in the desirability of mates on dating and social sites from around the world, and we have such enormous amounts of data now from demonstrated preferences that these questions are no longer hypothetical, but now require refutation that will be difficult to determine. WHY DO WE SELECT FOR THESE TRAITS? Women select poorly by instinct, and men are not terribly selective at all. Women are attracted to that which they understand, men what visual signs of fertility that they can observe. Marriage and reduction of insurance by the tribe force men and women to mate on long-term survival grounds, rather than on our sexual impulses – which at least for women, do not assist us in collecting desirable traits in civilization. And men are not discriminate enough to select without marriage. Taller, more symmetrical, fairer, and all other signs of ‘health’ like hair, skin, head size. But we have to be able to survive our environments with those traits. Africa and high conflict areas need masculine traits, some ver hot areas smaller size, and the polar regions feminine traits are more beneficial, and survivable. It’s no secret any longer that there is a difference between how we perceive aspirational beauty (tall blondes) and reproductive frequency (petite brunettes). The petite brunettes have more offspring. And they appear to be far more loyal. And men are more willing to work for them. THE RESOURCE CURSE The discovery of fossil fuels for the purpose of creating electricity has been a quality of life improvement, but expanded dysgenia in cold climates to match that in warm climates. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Somewhere on planet earth.
-
The Subtle Cause Of Differences In Races And Tribes
The ethnically Dutch are definitely the ‘master tribe’ by any empirical measure. The ethnically north sea (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and North Germans) are an obvious distance behind. If for no other reason than there is greater territorial distance between them and the less evolved people (resistance to invasive genes), and the difficulty of surviving long winters ( selection ), and the combination of late marriage, voluntary mate selection, and near breeding (selection), culling (hanging, starvation, and war). The celts ( my mother’s relations, and that of most of Britons ) get to ride-along like the Franks, and the eastern Europeans. But its pretty simple really: Selective breeding over longer periods of time with less of the genes from the sunshine latitudes. Evolution progresses upward under lower population density and dysgenia spreads in high population density. This is fairly obvious but that there should be a balance in order to preserve the human condition is something that limits us, and we dislike it. Someone sent me a map the other day, that showed genders of western Europeans (r1b, r1a) to be about equally attractive on average(forests: cattle farmers), eastern European females on average to be more attractive than males (Polish Ukrainian Russian), and, along with the increase in black hair, southeastern europeans to be less attractive on average, and middle easterners (turks, iranians, Jews, and Arabs) to be much less attractive on average. This assessment does not include north Africans, black Africans, the caucasian people of India, or the east and southeast Asians. But if I look at it as a very simple question of (a) degree of sexual immaturity or maturity, (b) degree of sexual dimorphism, then these two axes reflect both differences in testosterone and estrogen, and differences in sexual maturity. – Southeast Asians have lower sexual maturity, lower sexual dimorphism that’s slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – East Asians have lower sexual maturity and lower sexual dimorphism, slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – Eastern and Southern Slavs have lower sexual maturity, (hence the jawline), and higher female dimorphism. Women slightly more desirable than men. – Germanic Whites have lower sexual maturity (prolonged adolescence) and higher sexual dimorphism. Men and women equally desirable. – The Iranian/jewish branch (vs the celt/germanpolish/ukrainian branch), and the arab and berber branches, have higher sexual maturity but level sexual dimorphism. (male emotionalism, females with strong male features). Men more desirable than women. – The black africans have very high and fast sexual maturity, superior strength and agility. and masculine slanted sexual dimorphism. High inequality of desirability between women and men. CAN TWO AXIS EXPLAIN ALMOST EVERYTHING? Lets illustrate using two well-understood extremes: female solipsism and male autism. Women tend toward the solipsistic and men the autistic. Men tend toward the spatio-physical(models and systems), and women to the verbal (individuals and experiences). Rates of maturity reduce time in childhood and adolescence for learning. Rates of maturity increase impulsivity. Search for novelty increases THE DATA We see this in the desirability of mates on dating and social sites from around the world, and we have such enormous amounts of data now from demonstrated preferences that these questions are no longer hypothetical, but now require refutation that will be difficult to determine. WHY DO WE SELECT FOR THESE TRAITS? Women select poorly by instinct, and men are not terribly selective at all. Women are attracted to that which they understand, men what visual signs of fertility that they can observe. Marriage and reduction of insurance by the tribe force men and women to mate on long-term survival grounds, rather than on our sexual impulses – which at least for women, do not assist us in collecting desirable traits in civilization. And men are not discriminate enough to select without marriage. Taller, more symmetrical, fairer, and all other signs of ‘health’ like hair, skin, head size. But we have to be able to survive our environments with those traits. Africa and high conflict areas need masculine traits, some ver hot areas smaller size, and the polar regions feminine traits are more beneficial, and survivable. It’s no secret any longer that there is a difference between how we perceive aspirational beauty (tall blondes) and reproductive frequency (petite brunettes). The petite brunettes have more offspring. And they appear to be far more loyal. And men are more willing to work for them. THE RESOURCE CURSE The discovery of fossil fuels for the purpose of creating electricity has been a quality of life improvement, but expanded dysgenia in cold climates to match that in warm climates. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Somewhere on planet earth.
-
Q&A: The Importance of Aristotle?
—“Hi, Curt. Currently going through your reading list. Trying to make myself the best propertarian I can so I can help spread the message. There are plenty of libertarians and conservatives who would take to propertarianism if they got the message. My question is to you what do you think the significance of Aristotle’s work is from a propertarian perspective?”— Well, Aristotle is as close as we come to the first ‘scientist’, Social: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith and Hume, Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim. -vs- physical: Archimedes, Galileo, Copernicus, Davinci, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein Now, the way I use natural law was a product of the Stoics, not of Aristotle. And I tend to see the greek era as a combination of spartan aristocracy in law rationalized by the Romans, and Aristotelian intellectuals rationalized by the stoics. I would say that Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume and Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim, and Hayek, represent the attempt (and near failure) to make the case that natural law, discovered by judges by trial end error, is what constitutes social science. And that economics is an empirical branch of that science, as are evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. But those are explanatory fields, whereas natural, judge discovered, common law is a purely empirical field. And this is why I think of my work as uniting philosophy, morality(Ethics), science, sociology, psychology, and law, into a single universal language – as locke suggested – reducible to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property defined as that which humans demonstrate as property. So to summarize, I would say Aristotle is the father of western thought in this sense, and that between Aristotle’s idealism, stoic reason, and roman pragmatism, and finally English empiricism, we developed a chain of reasoning that nearly came to fruition in the last century – but Hayek, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, and Bridgman simply failed. Just as the conservatives failed to produce a competitor to cosmopolitan pseudosciences. And they failed because they subconsciously had to work around the truth: they were not benevolent Christians, but self-justifying Aryans (elites), and middle-class capitalism like middle-class voting, was a net negative for the simple reason that the success of the western model is reducible to truth, but that as a consequence our political system is reducible to benevolent domestication of animal man. And that was inconceivable to classical liberals so proud of their defeat of the aristocracy that had made their prosperity possible.
-
Q&A: The Importance of Aristotle?
—“Hi, Curt. Currently going through your reading list. Trying to make myself the best propertarian I can so I can help spread the message. There are plenty of libertarians and conservatives who would take to propertarianism if they got the message. My question is to you what do you think the significance of Aristotle’s work is from a propertarian perspective?”— Well, Aristotle is as close as we come to the first ‘scientist’, Social: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith and Hume, Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim. -vs- physical: Archimedes, Galileo, Copernicus, Davinci, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein Now, the way I use natural law was a product of the Stoics, not of Aristotle. And I tend to see the greek era as a combination of spartan aristocracy in law rationalized by the Romans, and Aristotelian intellectuals rationalized by the stoics. I would say that Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume and Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim, and Hayek, represent the attempt (and near failure) to make the case that natural law, discovered by judges by trial end error, is what constitutes social science. And that economics is an empirical branch of that science, as are evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. But those are explanatory fields, whereas natural, judge discovered, common law is a purely empirical field. And this is why I think of my work as uniting philosophy, morality(Ethics), science, sociology, psychology, and law, into a single universal language – as locke suggested – reducible to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property defined as that which humans demonstrate as property. So to summarize, I would say Aristotle is the father of western thought in this sense, and that between Aristotle’s idealism, stoic reason, and roman pragmatism, and finally English empiricism, we developed a chain of reasoning that nearly came to fruition in the last century – but Hayek, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, and Bridgman simply failed. Just as the conservatives failed to produce a competitor to cosmopolitan pseudosciences. And they failed because they subconsciously had to work around the truth: they were not benevolent Christians, but self-justifying Aryans (elites), and middle-class capitalism like middle-class voting, was a net negative for the simple reason that the success of the western model is reducible to truth, but that as a consequence our political system is reducible to benevolent domestication of animal man. And that was inconceivable to classical liberals so proud of their defeat of the aristocracy that had made their prosperity possible.
-
Q&A: What’s Wrong With Capitalism?
—“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”— Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons. That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability). The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance). The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions. Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption. When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector. We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector. So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption. The problem is: 1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem. 2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons. 3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending. So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.) Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces. In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with: 1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates. 2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives. 3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption. 4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers). The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities). I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes. The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Q&A: What’s Wrong With Capitalism?
—“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”— Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons. That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability). The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance). The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions. Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption. When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector. We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector. So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption. The problem is: 1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem. 2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons. 3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending. So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.) Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces. In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with: 1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates. 2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives. 3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption. 4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers). The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities). I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes. The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Information Is A Form Of Production No Different From Any Other
–“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”— I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments? It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie. Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow. So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future? Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech. But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was. What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false. IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons. Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’. So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech. It’s just the opposite. We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.