–“our prophet is sacred to us”– [R]ule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life. As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics. The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts. Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”
[H]e was that close.
I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.
Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.
-
Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”
[H]e was that close.
I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.
Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.
-
Morality is a Problem of Cost, Not Scarcity
[S]carcity and Property exist prior to cooperation. However, scarcity is an analytic concept. Humans think in terms of cost, not scarcity. Because scarcity requires knowledge we cannot possess other than through prices/costs. So we cannot know something is scarce any more than we can know something is analytically true. We can only know that it is costly. The very concept of scarcity is modern, even if the precursor existed in the late medieval period (Norman English). Prior to the modern period, everything is ‘scarce'(costly) except an oversupply of labor and an over-demand for consumption. So it is praxeologically irrational to construct operational definitions out of that which is operationally impossible. (the profundity of that statement may not be immediately obvious.)
Cooperation evolves out of the increased productive value of cooperating minus the loss of value in free riding, parasitism and predation. Humans evolved moral intuitions as pre-cognitive assessments of changes in the state of that which they had expended effort upon (paid costs for), so humans ‘feel’ changes in inventory as emotions, and ‘feel’ reactions to violations of parasitism, and react expensively to prevent future such actions – and so, humans act morally on costs, not analytically on scarcity. They must because reason is too expensive and failure prone compared with intuitive responses. We avoid one another because of potential conflict, yes. And, indeed, many of our primate relatives avoid conflict, but do not cooperate. Yet we cooperate with one another out of a desire for returns and discounts. We cooperate because we evolved the ability to empathize with intentions. We cooperate because it is more productive to cooperate than not. We are wealthier, more numerous and more powerful than our primate relatives, because we can not only prevent takings, but because we can cooperate – and they cannot.
But for cooperation to be both rational and evolutionarily survivable, it must be relatively free of parasitism (beneficial for all parties: meaning mutually productive). And that is why humans are so highly agitated that we inflict punishment on all violators of the contract against parasitism: violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking, conspiracy, statism, conversion, invasion, and conquest. We call this sequence ‘criminal, ethical, and immoral behavior’. Or we shorten it to ‘morals’.
As such, it is impossible for an economy to form without cooperation – where there are prohibitions only on violence, but an absence of a prohibition on parasitism that make cooperation possible. It is only possible for an economy to form in the presence of morality: suppression of free riding.
The only possible solution for any organism is the sequence:
1) movement/memory/scarcity/defense(property)
2) intention, incentives, cooperation, morality (non parasitism) – cooperation on the production of normative commons.
As such the only CAUSALLY POSSIBLE origin of moral rules is the prohibition on parasitism, not scarcity.
3) Just as we had to suppress ethical and moral parasitism in order to create cooperation, we must expand our suppression to include organized parasitism (state monopolies). But that does not mean that we must abandon prohibitions on parasitism. And it does not mean that it is possible to. Transaction costs alone would force the logical restoration of the state on the one hand, and the organized genocide of low trust peoples (gypsies and jews, and now apparently, muslims) that all host cultures (except the west) always enact. The only possible means of obtaining liberty is to increase the scope of moral prohibitions (prohibitions on parasitism) to reflect innovations in parasitism of the marxist and Keynesian era.
So, for a bit of irony, the scarcity exists prior to cooperation, and therefore it is not praxeologically possible to come into existence post-cooperation.
As such human societies evolve out of an ever-expanding suppression of parasitism, largely by centralizing parasitism to pay for the suppression of local parasitism. Once centralized, the next opportunity for increasing prosperity by suppression, is to eradicate centralized parasitism, by eliminating monopolies that make parasitism possible.
Ergo, the only possible libertarian society is one of high trust, and total suppression of free riding (parasitism).
Ergo the only possible social order using the ghetto ethic is one of those imprisoned either in the ghetto, or on Crusoe’s island.PRAXEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS
[O]ne must question the dogmatic advocacy of operational definitions (praxeology) in the construction of any economic statement that we say is ‘true’, while at the same time constructing economic statements that are not operational, but merely rational. This is a contradiction.Furthermore, operational (praxeological) definitions only prove that something is existentially possible, and if constructed as measures they produce reproducibility. But they do not demonstrate that they are in fact the way something occurred (truth), nor do they demonstrate the exclusive means by which something can be accomplished.
Meaning is useful, but it is rarely true – except by accident. In fact, we may view science as an effort to replace the subjectively meaningful, with the objectively truthful.Defense of meaning is justification. Man justifies. Justification is just another means of deception of others, and satisfying confirmation bias of the self – which in itself is merely an attempt to obtain a discount. But it is psychologically understandable that one would argue desperately to defend his investments in justification, despite the universal evidence to the contrary of his arguments. It is also logical that it is so easy to use loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, conflation, and justification, to do so. But justification is merely justification – an error or a deceit.
Hoppe and Rothbard work to justify Ghetto ethics. In large part i have solved the problem that Mises came so close to, failed to, and was ostracized over. I have tried to correct hoppe’s deductive arguments by converting them to scientific arguments, and thereby abandoning the ghetto influence of Rothbard, and preserving Hoppe’s arguments against the incentives of state vs private ownership. And his use of insurance to eliminate monopoly insurer of last resort. And his use of economics to operationally and intuitionistically describe operations and construct theories of all human behavior.
It so happens that the interests between states (out group parties) are not commensurable, and therefore can only be reduced to questions of property and contract. But for in-groups to form, sufficient to hold the territory necessary to implement sufficient suppression of parasitism that it is possible to construct a condition of liberty, requires the suppression of all forms of parasitism regardless of the means by which such costs are imposed.
Man perceives and operates on property he has expended costs, even mere forgone opportunity costs, to obtain. He treats his body, mind, kin, allies, several property, corporate property, common property, normative property, and sovereignty as property that he must defend. He seeks cooperation because it is a non linear multiplier of productivity. But he cooperates *under normative conditions*, meaning that he habituates cooperation, only under conditions of total prohibition on parasitism. Those peoples that learn truth can produce trust, and trust can produce greater velocity and adaptability than lower trust societies, because transaction costs are lower than all other competing groups. To create truth and trust a minority organize and systematically apply violence to those who practice lower levels of truth and trust, to compel them to either abandon their parasitism, or to leave, or to kill them, because their parasitism forces an exported cost upon all other high trust practitioners in the local region.
Hoppeian and Rothbardian mis-application of the ethics of international trade for the purpose of avoiding military conflict, to the local polity where the purpose is reducing transaction costs so that they can cooperate in production of goods, services, commons, institutions and norms, not-withstanding. (They are making a rather stupid error in retrospect. But like all people of those eras fighting socialists, they resorted to the same tactics. Fighting dishonest marxism with dishonest libertarianism is probably a tactical necessity, but now that we are no longer so ignorant of the science we can abandon imitating the marxists and just argue the case for liberty scientifically.)
Curt Doolittle
( it will take me a few more times to get it tight, but it’s pretty close.)
-
Morality is a Problem of Cost, Not Scarcity
[S]carcity and Property exist prior to cooperation. However, scarcity is an analytic concept. Humans think in terms of cost, not scarcity. Because scarcity requires knowledge we cannot possess other than through prices/costs. So we cannot know something is scarce any more than we can know something is analytically true. We can only know that it is costly. The very concept of scarcity is modern, even if the precursor existed in the late medieval period (Norman English). Prior to the modern period, everything is ‘scarce'(costly) except an oversupply of labor and an over-demand for consumption. So it is praxeologically irrational to construct operational definitions out of that which is operationally impossible. (the profundity of that statement may not be immediately obvious.)
Cooperation evolves out of the increased productive value of cooperating minus the loss of value in free riding, parasitism and predation. Humans evolved moral intuitions as pre-cognitive assessments of changes in the state of that which they had expended effort upon (paid costs for), so humans ‘feel’ changes in inventory as emotions, and ‘feel’ reactions to violations of parasitism, and react expensively to prevent future such actions – and so, humans act morally on costs, not analytically on scarcity. They must because reason is too expensive and failure prone compared with intuitive responses. We avoid one another because of potential conflict, yes. And, indeed, many of our primate relatives avoid conflict, but do not cooperate. Yet we cooperate with one another out of a desire for returns and discounts. We cooperate because we evolved the ability to empathize with intentions. We cooperate because it is more productive to cooperate than not. We are wealthier, more numerous and more powerful than our primate relatives, because we can not only prevent takings, but because we can cooperate – and they cannot.
But for cooperation to be both rational and evolutionarily survivable, it must be relatively free of parasitism (beneficial for all parties: meaning mutually productive). And that is why humans are so highly agitated that we inflict punishment on all violators of the contract against parasitism: violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking, conspiracy, statism, conversion, invasion, and conquest. We call this sequence ‘criminal, ethical, and immoral behavior’. Or we shorten it to ‘morals’.
As such, it is impossible for an economy to form without cooperation – where there are prohibitions only on violence, but an absence of a prohibition on parasitism that make cooperation possible. It is only possible for an economy to form in the presence of morality: suppression of free riding.
The only possible solution for any organism is the sequence:
1) movement/memory/scarcity/defense(property)
2) intention, incentives, cooperation, morality (non parasitism) – cooperation on the production of normative commons.
As such the only CAUSALLY POSSIBLE origin of moral rules is the prohibition on parasitism, not scarcity.
3) Just as we had to suppress ethical and moral parasitism in order to create cooperation, we must expand our suppression to include organized parasitism (state monopolies). But that does not mean that we must abandon prohibitions on parasitism. And it does not mean that it is possible to. Transaction costs alone would force the logical restoration of the state on the one hand, and the organized genocide of low trust peoples (gypsies and jews, and now apparently, muslims) that all host cultures (except the west) always enact. The only possible means of obtaining liberty is to increase the scope of moral prohibitions (prohibitions on parasitism) to reflect innovations in parasitism of the marxist and Keynesian era.
So, for a bit of irony, the scarcity exists prior to cooperation, and therefore it is not praxeologically possible to come into existence post-cooperation.
As such human societies evolve out of an ever-expanding suppression of parasitism, largely by centralizing parasitism to pay for the suppression of local parasitism. Once centralized, the next opportunity for increasing prosperity by suppression, is to eradicate centralized parasitism, by eliminating monopolies that make parasitism possible.
Ergo, the only possible libertarian society is one of high trust, and total suppression of free riding (parasitism).
Ergo the only possible social order using the ghetto ethic is one of those imprisoned either in the ghetto, or on Crusoe’s island.PRAXEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS
[O]ne must question the dogmatic advocacy of operational definitions (praxeology) in the construction of any economic statement that we say is ‘true’, while at the same time constructing economic statements that are not operational, but merely rational. This is a contradiction.Furthermore, operational (praxeological) definitions only prove that something is existentially possible, and if constructed as measures they produce reproducibility. But they do not demonstrate that they are in fact the way something occurred (truth), nor do they demonstrate the exclusive means by which something can be accomplished.
Meaning is useful, but it is rarely true – except by accident. In fact, we may view science as an effort to replace the subjectively meaningful, with the objectively truthful.Defense of meaning is justification. Man justifies. Justification is just another means of deception of others, and satisfying confirmation bias of the self – which in itself is merely an attempt to obtain a discount. But it is psychologically understandable that one would argue desperately to defend his investments in justification, despite the universal evidence to the contrary of his arguments. It is also logical that it is so easy to use loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, conflation, and justification, to do so. But justification is merely justification – an error or a deceit.
Hoppe and Rothbard work to justify Ghetto ethics. In large part i have solved the problem that Mises came so close to, failed to, and was ostracized over. I have tried to correct hoppe’s deductive arguments by converting them to scientific arguments, and thereby abandoning the ghetto influence of Rothbard, and preserving Hoppe’s arguments against the incentives of state vs private ownership. And his use of insurance to eliminate monopoly insurer of last resort. And his use of economics to operationally and intuitionistically describe operations and construct theories of all human behavior.
It so happens that the interests between states (out group parties) are not commensurable, and therefore can only be reduced to questions of property and contract. But for in-groups to form, sufficient to hold the territory necessary to implement sufficient suppression of parasitism that it is possible to construct a condition of liberty, requires the suppression of all forms of parasitism regardless of the means by which such costs are imposed.
Man perceives and operates on property he has expended costs, even mere forgone opportunity costs, to obtain. He treats his body, mind, kin, allies, several property, corporate property, common property, normative property, and sovereignty as property that he must defend. He seeks cooperation because it is a non linear multiplier of productivity. But he cooperates *under normative conditions*, meaning that he habituates cooperation, only under conditions of total prohibition on parasitism. Those peoples that learn truth can produce trust, and trust can produce greater velocity and adaptability than lower trust societies, because transaction costs are lower than all other competing groups. To create truth and trust a minority organize and systematically apply violence to those who practice lower levels of truth and trust, to compel them to either abandon their parasitism, or to leave, or to kill them, because their parasitism forces an exported cost upon all other high trust practitioners in the local region.
Hoppeian and Rothbardian mis-application of the ethics of international trade for the purpose of avoiding military conflict, to the local polity where the purpose is reducing transaction costs so that they can cooperate in production of goods, services, commons, institutions and norms, not-withstanding. (They are making a rather stupid error in retrospect. But like all people of those eras fighting socialists, they resorted to the same tactics. Fighting dishonest marxism with dishonest libertarianism is probably a tactical necessity, but now that we are no longer so ignorant of the science we can abandon imitating the marxists and just argue the case for liberty scientifically.)
Curt Doolittle
( it will take me a few more times to get it tight, but it’s pretty close.)
-
You Are Welcome To Your Privilege
—“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman—“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle
—“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle
—“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle
-
You Are Welcome To Your Privilege
—“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman—“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle
—“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle
—“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle
-
I Don’t Support Ron Paul Either
(A Call To Classical Liberalism)
[R]on Paul committed political suicide, in an act of profound moral cowardice, joining the Mises Institute in their decades of ideological suicide, by using the hardship of real people as an excuse to produce propaganda against the monopoly bureaucratic state – a fight in which the Ukrainians themselves are more the victim of than any other people.It was an act of unconscionable immorality, demonstrating the immorality of libertine free rider libertarianism – But moreover it violates the western aristocratic moral imperative that is the source of all liberty: that any who desire to be free of tyranny in pursuit of property rights, shall have our alliance, if we obtain their alliance in return. The west was constructed using this ethic.
The low-trust, free riding, Rothbardian ethic of the Ghetto mandates that we walk away from all fights that are not directly initiated against us. But under this ethic, not only would the west never have arisen, but neither would have liberty, because liberty was the result of this system of ever-expanding alliances between families, tribes, city states, and nation-states: the reciprocal grant of sovereignty over life and property in exchange for reciprocal insurance in the defense of life liberty and property. This exchange is the origin of liberty and property rights, and all men sought this status, and the prosperity it gave them, by demonstrating their commitment in martial service to one another. This is the only source of rights that is existentially possible – every alternative justification is a mere verbal excuse to escape the high cost of constructing a condition of liberty by taking responsibility for using, and spending, your wealth of violence, to construct and preserve it.The war for liberty is not against the nation state – if anything we must re-nationalize liberalism to save the west – but instead, libertinism, like marxism, socialism, postmodernism and neo-conservatism, are a war intentionally produced by cosmopolitan separatists against western solidarity, for the purpose of preserving their dual-ethical social model, and its dependence upon free riding on the martial strength, martial expense, and martial risk, of others. There is no possibility for one to claim moral righteousness by free riding upon the costly defense of others, and no moral righteousness not coming to the martial aid of all those who seek to join the alliance of free men. It is merely free riding: theft. An act of fraud by which one seeks to obtain the expensive liberty at a discount. If this escapist strategy is followed to its end, it will leave a people homeless, diasporic, and dependent upon the kindness and charity of host people, nations, and civilizations. It has. It does.
What differentiates the west from the west is not the six apps that Nial Ferguson compliments us for – they are effects, not causes. The source of those six apps, and the west’s ability to innovate faster than all other civilizations combined, despite our poverty, small numbers, and distance from the origin of the bronze age, is that we discovered the truth, we speak the truth, we trust because we speak the truth, we hold each other accountable for speaking the truth, and we exchange the promise of our ready and willing hand of violence in the defense of the life liberty and property of our allies. Western excellence is the result of the unique western reliance upon truth as the most expensive, and most disciplined commons ever constructed by man.
Reality intervenes on all ideals, but the west, western ethics, western prosperity, and western liberty, evolved because more often then not, we preserved sovereignty with the reciprocal commitment for truth and violence, and we appeal to the jury of our peers as a test of both.
So, leave Ron Paul, and his marxist-inspired allies. Return to classical liberalism and abandon the immoral ethics of the Ghetto. Unless you prefer to live in one. Because the ghetto is the result of those ethics libertines espouse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev UkraineWEB SITE
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/LOU ROCKWELL GETS OFFENDED
http://www.lewrockwell.com/…/troika-seeks-to-purge-ron-paul/TARGET LIBERTY GETS OFFENDED
http://www.targetliberty.com/…/sfl-faction-starts-website-t… -
I Don’t Support Ron Paul Either
(A Call To Classical Liberalism)
[R]on Paul committed political suicide, in an act of profound moral cowardice, joining the Mises Institute in their decades of ideological suicide, by using the hardship of real people as an excuse to produce propaganda against the monopoly bureaucratic state – a fight in which the Ukrainians themselves are more the victim of than any other people.It was an act of unconscionable immorality, demonstrating the immorality of libertine free rider libertarianism – But moreover it violates the western aristocratic moral imperative that is the source of all liberty: that any who desire to be free of tyranny in pursuit of property rights, shall have our alliance, if we obtain their alliance in return. The west was constructed using this ethic.
The low-trust, free riding, Rothbardian ethic of the Ghetto mandates that we walk away from all fights that are not directly initiated against us. But under this ethic, not only would the west never have arisen, but neither would have liberty, because liberty was the result of this system of ever-expanding alliances between families, tribes, city states, and nation-states: the reciprocal grant of sovereignty over life and property in exchange for reciprocal insurance in the defense of life liberty and property. This exchange is the origin of liberty and property rights, and all men sought this status, and the prosperity it gave them, by demonstrating their commitment in martial service to one another. This is the only source of rights that is existentially possible – every alternative justification is a mere verbal excuse to escape the high cost of constructing a condition of liberty by taking responsibility for using, and spending, your wealth of violence, to construct and preserve it.The war for liberty is not against the nation state – if anything we must re-nationalize liberalism to save the west – but instead, libertinism, like marxism, socialism, postmodernism and neo-conservatism, are a war intentionally produced by cosmopolitan separatists against western solidarity, for the purpose of preserving their dual-ethical social model, and its dependence upon free riding on the martial strength, martial expense, and martial risk, of others. There is no possibility for one to claim moral righteousness by free riding upon the costly defense of others, and no moral righteousness not coming to the martial aid of all those who seek to join the alliance of free men. It is merely free riding: theft. An act of fraud by which one seeks to obtain the expensive liberty at a discount. If this escapist strategy is followed to its end, it will leave a people homeless, diasporic, and dependent upon the kindness and charity of host people, nations, and civilizations. It has. It does.
What differentiates the west from the west is not the six apps that Nial Ferguson compliments us for – they are effects, not causes. The source of those six apps, and the west’s ability to innovate faster than all other civilizations combined, despite our poverty, small numbers, and distance from the origin of the bronze age, is that we discovered the truth, we speak the truth, we trust because we speak the truth, we hold each other accountable for speaking the truth, and we exchange the promise of our ready and willing hand of violence in the defense of the life liberty and property of our allies. Western excellence is the result of the unique western reliance upon truth as the most expensive, and most disciplined commons ever constructed by man.
Reality intervenes on all ideals, but the west, western ethics, western prosperity, and western liberty, evolved because more often then not, we preserved sovereignty with the reciprocal commitment for truth and violence, and we appeal to the jury of our peers as a test of both.
So, leave Ron Paul, and his marxist-inspired allies. Return to classical liberalism and abandon the immoral ethics of the Ghetto. Unless you prefer to live in one. Because the ghetto is the result of those ethics libertines espouse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev UkraineWEB SITE
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/LOU ROCKWELL GETS OFFENDED
http://www.lewrockwell.com/…/troika-seeks-to-purge-ron-paul/TARGET LIBERTY GETS OFFENDED
http://www.targetliberty.com/…/sfl-faction-starts-website-t… -
Sorry That My Work On Truth Isn’t All That Interesting To You. 🙂
(the importance of the work)
[I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.
But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.
The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.
A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).
All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.
I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.
But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.
And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.
***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***
So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine—–
[1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).