—“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract. By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Law Of Nature Is The Law Of God.
It is far harder to give moral men a license to kill than to avoid killing. But once possessed of that license and in the absence of fear of retaliation by his peers, and with the opportunity of accolades and status from his peers, the moral man is an unstoppable warrior. I have been endeavoring to provide moral men with moral license to kill, destroy, harm, and if necessary, subjugate, and even enslave, those who would break god’s law: natural law, and speak other than god’s language ‘natural truth’, and govern by other than god’s rule: rule of law. Are many gods. Just as there are many suns in the universe. But there is but one set of laws that the universe and we within it operate by. These laws constitute ‘the truth’, and they are the word of the one, and final god, beyond which no other god may transgress. Your minor gods will not help you when moral men, with gods language, gods laws, punish you and your gods, for transgressions. Curt Doolittle The Law of Nature The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
The Law Of Nature Is The Law Of God.
It is far harder to give moral men a license to kill than to avoid killing. But once possessed of that license and in the absence of fear of retaliation by his peers, and with the opportunity of accolades and status from his peers, the moral man is an unstoppable warrior. I have been endeavoring to provide moral men with moral license to kill, destroy, harm, and if necessary, subjugate, and even enslave, those who would break god’s law: natural law, and speak other than god’s language ‘natural truth’, and govern by other than god’s rule: rule of law. Are many gods. Just as there are many suns in the universe. But there is but one set of laws that the universe and we within it operate by. These laws constitute ‘the truth’, and they are the word of the one, and final god, beyond which no other god may transgress. Your minor gods will not help you when moral men, with gods language, gods laws, punish you and your gods, for transgressions. Curt Doolittle The Law of Nature The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”
—“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers -
Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”
—“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers -
Western Truth Vs The Lie Of Social Construction
Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Western Truth Vs The Lie Of Social Construction
Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A: “British civilization viz a viz the ancient Greek civilization?”
Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?” The Aegean vs The North Sea Reason vs Empiricism Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany Rome vs the United States Bronze vs steel Trireme vs warship In other words, there isnt any difference. Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america. The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.
-
Q&A: “British civilization viz a viz the ancient Greek civilization?”
Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?” The Aegean vs The North Sea Reason vs Empiricism Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany Rome vs the United States Bronze vs steel Trireme vs warship In other words, there isnt any difference. Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america. The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.
-
When We Say “Scientific” What Operations Are We Referring To?
WHEN WE SAY “SCIENTIFIC” WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE REFERRING TO?(important) (scientific method) (informational commons) It’s not the subject matter, nor the method of inquiry, nor the method of hypothesizing that’s classifiably scientific or that places any limits on what we call scientific investigation. ORIGINATION OF HYPOTHESIS: INCREASED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PERCEPTION We can produce an hypothesis through free association, or random selection. The method of arrival doesn’t tell us anything. In general we must increase the amount of information that we possess either by concentrating time, expanding time, expanding scale, decreasing scale, increasing precision of physical instrumentation, increasing precision of logical instrumentation, increasing precision of institutional instrumentation. Once we have increased information by reducing it to an analogy to experience that we CAN perceive, we can then compare and make judgments and offer hypotheses that transcend the limitations of perception, time, scale, and instrumentation. The function of the discipline of science – and that which we call the scientific method – is to test each dimension of a hypothesis to determine whether it survives. And by survival increase the burden that we place on the testing; and by failure discover new potential ideas (avenues) for inquiry (free association). Because of this, the discipline of science, with which we practice the scientific method, functions (like its origins in law), as a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion(and substitution), overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda), and deceit. In the process of due diligence, we search (a process of wayfinding), for possible causal explanations. INVESTIGATION: CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTATION The act of scientific *investigation* consists not in the warranties, but in developing categorical, logical, physical, and institutional instrumentation with which to reduce what we cannot directly experience, to that which we can experience, so that we can detect marginal differences, and make decisions, which serve as inputs to our free association (search of memory for patterns). So just as we use justification for moral and legal argument, and criticism for truth and scientific argument. Just as we use the golden rule to assert desirable ends, and the silver rule to prevent negative ends, we also construct instrumentation to assert positive tests, and we apply the scientific method, to conduct negative tests. Most science requires the invention of tools to extend our perception such that we can reduce the imperceptible to an analogy to experience with which we can make comparisons and render judgments. DUE DILIGENCE: WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS But why must we perform due diligence? True Enough? True Enough For What Purpose ——————————————————————— Comprehension? Further Association? Planning action? Acting? Risking? – or – Communication? Negotiation? Advice? Ethical license? Moral license? Risk of loss license? Risk of harm license? Risk of Death License? There are greater consequences to our utterances than there are to our thoughts. What happens in your bedroom is beyond the reach of the commons, and so long as it does not enter the commons there is not a moral question. What happens in your living room among guests may enter the commons or not. What actions and words you speak in public are de facto within the commons. If you PUBLISH and especially do so for any form of profit, then you are manufacturing a good (or harm) that is not only entered into the commons but for the duration of its existence. There is no difference between shipping a poisonous medicine, an incorrect recipe or plan, a product that if misused can harm, or a product that can harm without extraordinary due diligence. We tolerate emotional outbursts from one another. We tolerate error from one another, we tolerate bias sometimes, we tolerate suggestion infrequently, and we react negatively do deception and harm. Moral intuitions evolved to cause us to retaliate even at very high cost, against those who engage in parasitism by any means, including the imposition of harm directly or indirectly. NO MAN WANTS TO PAY THE COST OF REGULATION AGAINST HARM – HE PREFERS TO EXTERNALIZE THE COSTS PARASITICALLY, FOR TESTING HIS UTTERANCES. Parasitism in production, consumption, defense, and information are all natural human behaviors: we take discounts where we can get away with them. But the history of civilization is the history of incremental suppression of parasitism from murder, to violence, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy. And the (Popperian) insight that science occurs not only personally, interpersonally, and socially, and that we do harm by pseudoscientific and insufficient diligence, because we have insufficient incentive to warranty our utterances. The scientific method, at least for scientists, asks us to use instrumentation and judgement to warranty our utterances against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overlaoding, and decet. It just so happens that in an effort to speak the truth, through these process of warranties, we are more likely to discover that truth. THE X/Y AXIS OF DECIDABILITY IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF WARRANTY x—> Epistemic process, Y —> Due diligence against harm. There is no difference between the production of any good whether physical, normative, institutional, or intellectual. It follows the same process from free association, to individual rational testing, to individual or group hypothesis, to thorough testing, to theory to social application testing, to law, to universal metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe we live in: physical and totally deterministic, or sentient, and less so. What differs only is which output we value that is produced in that process AND the level of ‘truthfulness’ necessary to act upon it without harm to ourselves or others. COSTS PROVIDE DECIDABILITY IN CHOICE We must always, if we are to avoid error and immorality, remember that the reason that the ancients failed to solve the problem of social science was that they ignored costs. Whether this was a polite mannerism of the wealthy crippling their reason, or the natural consequence of cost exposing our different interests, or fear of overlapping religion and politics, morality and law, and drawing their ire. The separation is either an error, a bias, or a deceit. The reasons we did not solve the problem of social science, are the same reasons popper did not correctly identify the scientific equivalent of the mathematical axiom of choice: cost. The universe takes the least cost route. Man takes the least cost route. Scientific investigation can and does proceed successfully by taking the least cost route. And it is the least cost route to information expansion that we CAN and do use to provide decidability in matters of inquiry. And that is what we do. Man is a very simple creature. We observe changes in state of assets that we value (calorically). These changes in assets produce chemical reactions we call emotions. Our mind evolved to assist us in obtaining those emotions. Our minds use memory to conduct wayfinding. We then criticize our wayfinding. And of the possible found ways, we take that which provides the greatest return in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, ad the lowest risk. Becuase we are merely a part of nature. And memory is very useful for the production of energy, and the conservation of energy, despite its extremely high cost of operation. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute