Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • What Is The Appropriate Role And Amount Of Government Regulation Of Businesses?

    (The word ‘appropriate’ is a form of linguistic dishonesty that attempts to create a moral statement where none exists.) 

    Instead, the question is whether a MONOPOLY (in this case, the government), that is insulated from prosecution under the law (bureaucrats), and insulated from market pressures (competition), is superior to a POLYPOLY, in which all members are subject to prosecution under the law (citizens) and subject to market pressures (competition).

    The general theory is that monopolies are necessary to START regulation (government), but that once instituted that competing institutions subject to rule of law are superior to democratic and political influences (politicians, corruption, oligarchies), because each individual everywhere in society, if he holds legal standing under universal standing, is capable of policing the regulators. 

    The problem we have in government is that we cannot police the regulators ,and the implication that voting  is a proxy for lawsuits is empirically false.

    As such, removal of corporate protections and extension of liability to all employees of all organizations, and the granting of universal standing, and the requirement that anyone we would consider needing regulation be insured, allows us to construct competing insurance companies that replace corrupt monopoly bureaucracies in government as means of regulation.

    SO it is not the degree of regulation that is the question, but whether regulation should be performed by monopolies or polypolies.  And the answer is that most regulations must be legally imposed by the monopoly we call government, by requiring private insurance, and that the entire population is both responsible for and capable of policing those companies AND their insurers. 

    It should be fairly obvious that POLOPOLY under NOMOCRACY is a superior means of regulation because it eliminates the possibility of corruption endemic to monopolies.  And equally obvious that the market will seek the level of regulation necessary for insurers and producers to defend themselves from activist citizens intent on controlling them by limiting them moral actions.

    It is less obvious that it is government sanction of corruption and government delivery of regulation that is the cause of illicit business activity, precisely because during the early industrial revolution, governments who were envious of collecting new tax revenues granted protections to private businesses and removed the public’s common law ability to regulate such businesses.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appropriate-role-and-amount-of-government-regulation-of-businesses

  • What Are The Assumptions Of The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility?

    I can’t figure out if this is an honest question or some moron’s bot-work.

    The only assumption in marginal utility is that it is a general rule of arbitrary precision like all general rules must be constructed of arbitrary precision by logical necessity.  

    So as far as I know, no assumptions external to the construction of ALL general theories are present in marginal utility.  It is just that the distribution of particulars under social sciences are wider that n the distribution of particulars in the physical sciences: man learns. Hydrogen does as hydrogen is, and that’s the end of it.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-assumptions-of-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-utility

  • How Much More Capitalist Is The Us Than Germany?

    • Capitalism: the voluntary organization of consumer production.  (Liberty)
    • Socialism: the involuntary organization of consumer production. (Totalitarianism)
    • Mixed Economy: the voluntary organization of consumer production, and the involuntary redistribution of the rewards earned by organizing consumer production. (A trade-off between liberty and totalitarianism).

    Socialism is impossible, since neither the incentives to produce, nor the means of economic calculation are possible.  The only possible means of organizing production that produces surpluses is to provide both individual incentives and the means of rational calculation for pursuing those incentives.

    This means that the only possible means of organizing production that is adaptive to changes in the world (wants and scarcities) is capitalism.  This is why the entire world has adopted capitalism (the voluntary organization of consumer production). 

    However, the entire world has also adopted mixed economy consumer capitalism: that is, the authoritarian regulation and taking of the rewards from the voluntary organization of production, for the purpose of redistribution (By licit or illicit means, for licit or illicit purposes.)

    So the entire world practices capitalism and none of the world practices socialism. Instead, the whole world practices mixed economy capitalism by taking the maximum amount that they can extract from the organizers of production without disrupting the organization of production. 

    Now, the difference between the USA and Germany is such:
    1) germans are less diverse (more homogeneous) and homogeneous societies (see scandinavia) are comfortable with redistribution (sacrifice of my family and children and subsequent generations) for the service of yours. However, diverse polities are not comfortable with sacrificing for their competitors, any more than germans are happy redistributing to Turks, or mediterranean cultures that are lazier and more corrupt.  America by contrast has an old historical problem of diversity of many peoples, and self reliance.   The more diverse a people the less tolerance for redistribution.

    2) America is not comparable to Germany per se, but to Europe in total. There are 50 American states, and no less than 9 or 10 american regional cultures, and just as brussels is  perceived as a dictatorship the american government is perceived as a dictatorship by the central and southern peoples of the american continent, that works for the advantage of the high population centers of immigrants on the coastal areas.

    As such Germany is both more homogenous, smaller, and more likely to redistribute, (over the objections of the south), while America is larger, more diverse, and less willing to redistribute.  The reason is that germans are not competitors for power with one another (mostly) but american regions are at war with one another using the government as a proxy.

    For these reasons Germany is less an advocate of a mixed economy than say California or New York, but more so than say Iowa, Georgia and Alaska.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-capitalist-is-the-US-than-Germany

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • Mises’ Position In Intellectual History

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY? (reposted from elsewhere) (I think this will blow your mind a little bit.) Mises Human Action as Cosmopolitan Stoicism. [H]e was almost right. If Rothbard and the Rothbardians had not damaged his legacy so severely, he would not be ostracized by the main stream intellectual community. At present any mention of his name associates a public intellectual, an economist, or philosopher, with the pseudoscientific lunatic fringe. Praxeology is a failed attempt at Operationalism, sure – but no one ELSE came close to developing economic operationalism but Mises. I only did it because I have the luxury of a century of additional development in computability (especially Turing), and because it’s clear now that the analytic program (attempt to convert philosophy into a science) has been a failure, and that the success in reforming both science and psychology has almost entirely been because of Operationalism. Had Mises joined with Brouwer and Bridgman, the three of them might have saved us from a century of pseudoscience. But without a philosopher of ethics to unify them, Popper in the philosophy of science, Mises in Economics, Brouwer in mathematics, and Bridgman in physics all failed to come to the correct conclusion: that they were not in fact articulating logical constraints – because there is no logical constraint to theory-development. The logical constraint is only in the statement of promise (that you are telling the truth) that such a theory can be expressed existentially, as a sequence of operations (actions) or operational measures of observations. And as such, one’s theory, in any discipline, is free of content that was added by error, imagination, or deception. Man can testify to observation in the execution of recipes – all else is imagination. As such the practice of the sciences (or rather, the practice of *disciplined testimony* which the sciences developed, but which consists of nothing unique to the physical sciences) is a moral one, with ethical constraints. As such, praxeology, mathematical intuitionism, operationalism, operationism, Popper’s critical preference, and the scientific method, as well as the discipline of science as currently practiced, are moral constraints, not logical ones. One can intuit a theory by whatever means possible. One can believe whatever he wishes to justify. But one’s promise of testimony to the actions that did or may produce consequences is a moral one, not a logical one. [A]s far as I know, the only meaningful reason to study economics for use in ethics and politics, is to justify the rule of law (Nomocracy), under the single rule of property rights, where property rights is as defined under Propertarianism, as property-en-toto (demonstrated property). And where that body of law suppresses sufficient involuntary transfer of property-en-toto, that the formation of a Nomocratic polity is possible. And where the formation and perpetuation of that polity is possible, because transaction costs are sufficiently suppressed that a rational choice for Nomocracy is possible, over a rational choice for statism. And that the normative preference of nomocratic rule over statist rule is maintained by the constant exercise of that body of law in daily life, rather than a phillosophical-rational, religio-moral, pedagogically-instructional, or normatively-habituated means of persistence. If we look at his human action as an attempt to develop an economic version of stoicism – a mental discipline – I think it is probably a better frame of reference for his work than as economics or analytic philosophy. As such I see him as creating a Cosmopolitan version of stoicism (economic/intellectual character) rather than western (Aryan if you will) stoicism (political/craftsmanship character). Both forms of stoicism are early attempts at operationalizing philosophy for disciplinary action as an individual member of a complex division of labor in which we possess fragmentary information. Since I quote him endlessly for his analysis of money and fiduciary media, which again, he (“a sequence of human actions” = “operational observations”) correctly uses operational analysis to isolate and articulate the causal rather than normative properties – I am clearly an advocate. But I am not an advocate of the misuse of Mises’ errors – his failed attempt to develop economic operationalism – to justify Rothbardian libertinism – an outright assault on the production of both high trust, and the commons – both of which are the primary competitive advantages constituent in the western indo-european (Aryan if you will) evolutionary strategy. [I] walk by Mises’ childhood home every day. It has tempered my criticism. I see him making natural errors of Cosmopolitanism – as Hayek said “a victim of his upbringing”. Just as the Germans have made endless errors in conflating religion and philosophy to preserve their hierarchy and duty as a group competitive strategy. Just as British (Anglo/Irish/Scots if not the Belgae) have fought to preserve their island universalism despite the necessary suicide that results from universalism outside of their island (or the american island, or the Australian island.) I will venture this post is one of the more important things that has been written about Mises in recent history, and my arguments, if not my criticisms will assist us in RESCUING Mises from the lunatic fringe, and RESCUING his work for use in intellectual discourse – as the first attempt at saving Economics through operationalism, the way that science and psychology (if not also mathematics and logic) have been saved by operationalism. **I see myself as rescuing ALL of the Misesian/Hoppeian program from the fruitcake fringe: by laundering German, Jewish and British enlightenment fallacies – the attempt to universalize local evolutionary strategy – rather than simply adopt scientific epistemology (operationalism) as the only neutral tool for the use of studying group evolutionary strategies.** Although it is, I am sure, somewhat difficult for those religiously devoted to immoral, libertine, Rothbardianism to either understand or accept. I am quite sure I do not err in this analysis. A statement which I am aware further taunts libertines. But which my fellow aristocrats (libertarians-proper) both understand and expect from me as a promise. Because the anglo-empirical model of truth telling, quite opposite from the cosmopolitan, is that truth is the name for testimony. And as such I testify that to the best of my knowledge my statement is true. And that I bear the reputational consequences of my promise that this statement is true. This is the polar opposite of the Popperian, Analytic, and Cosmopolitan version of true: that truth is the unknowable province of god alone, and as such we can only ‘do what we can’, and as such are unaccountable for our words. This ethic, this definition of truth, as performative – as operational, is what Kant was searching for, but could not find. And it is why both Jewish and German philosophy are dead ends. And it is why english philosophy became lost through its influence by the germans and the cosmopolitans. We lost a century of philosophy to cosmopolitan pseudoscience in economics, politics, ethics and logic. Germans lost centuries to pseudo-philosophical religio-moralism. Mises can be seen in context as the most successful – if still failed – attempt to rescue german and cosmopolitan thought from its religious constraints. – Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Mises’ Position In Intellectual History

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY? (reposted from elsewhere) (I think this will blow your mind a little bit.) Mises Human Action as Cosmopolitan Stoicism. [H]e was almost right. If Rothbard and the Rothbardians had not damaged his legacy so severely, he would not be ostracized by the main stream intellectual community. At present any mention of his name associates a public intellectual, an economist, or philosopher, with the pseudoscientific lunatic fringe. Praxeology is a failed attempt at Operationalism, sure – but no one ELSE came close to developing economic operationalism but Mises. I only did it because I have the luxury of a century of additional development in computability (especially Turing), and because it’s clear now that the analytic program (attempt to convert philosophy into a science) has been a failure, and that the success in reforming both science and psychology has almost entirely been because of Operationalism. Had Mises joined with Brouwer and Bridgman, the three of them might have saved us from a century of pseudoscience. But without a philosopher of ethics to unify them, Popper in the philosophy of science, Mises in Economics, Brouwer in mathematics, and Bridgman in physics all failed to come to the correct conclusion: that they were not in fact articulating logical constraints – because there is no logical constraint to theory-development. The logical constraint is only in the statement of promise (that you are telling the truth) that such a theory can be expressed existentially, as a sequence of operations (actions) or operational measures of observations. And as such, one’s theory, in any discipline, is free of content that was added by error, imagination, or deception. Man can testify to observation in the execution of recipes – all else is imagination. As such the practice of the sciences (or rather, the practice of *disciplined testimony* which the sciences developed, but which consists of nothing unique to the physical sciences) is a moral one, with ethical constraints. As such, praxeology, mathematical intuitionism, operationalism, operationism, Popper’s critical preference, and the scientific method, as well as the discipline of science as currently practiced, are moral constraints, not logical ones. One can intuit a theory by whatever means possible. One can believe whatever he wishes to justify. But one’s promise of testimony to the actions that did or may produce consequences is a moral one, not a logical one. [A]s far as I know, the only meaningful reason to study economics for use in ethics and politics, is to justify the rule of law (Nomocracy), under the single rule of property rights, where property rights is as defined under Propertarianism, as property-en-toto (demonstrated property). And where that body of law suppresses sufficient involuntary transfer of property-en-toto, that the formation of a Nomocratic polity is possible. And where the formation and perpetuation of that polity is possible, because transaction costs are sufficiently suppressed that a rational choice for Nomocracy is possible, over a rational choice for statism. And that the normative preference of nomocratic rule over statist rule is maintained by the constant exercise of that body of law in daily life, rather than a phillosophical-rational, religio-moral, pedagogically-instructional, or normatively-habituated means of persistence. If we look at his human action as an attempt to develop an economic version of stoicism – a mental discipline – I think it is probably a better frame of reference for his work than as economics or analytic philosophy. As such I see him as creating a Cosmopolitan version of stoicism (economic/intellectual character) rather than western (Aryan if you will) stoicism (political/craftsmanship character). Both forms of stoicism are early attempts at operationalizing philosophy for disciplinary action as an individual member of a complex division of labor in which we possess fragmentary information. Since I quote him endlessly for his analysis of money and fiduciary media, which again, he (“a sequence of human actions” = “operational observations”) correctly uses operational analysis to isolate and articulate the causal rather than normative properties – I am clearly an advocate. But I am not an advocate of the misuse of Mises’ errors – his failed attempt to develop economic operationalism – to justify Rothbardian libertinism – an outright assault on the production of both high trust, and the commons – both of which are the primary competitive advantages constituent in the western indo-european (Aryan if you will) evolutionary strategy. [I] walk by Mises’ childhood home every day. It has tempered my criticism. I see him making natural errors of Cosmopolitanism – as Hayek said “a victim of his upbringing”. Just as the Germans have made endless errors in conflating religion and philosophy to preserve their hierarchy and duty as a group competitive strategy. Just as British (Anglo/Irish/Scots if not the Belgae) have fought to preserve their island universalism despite the necessary suicide that results from universalism outside of their island (or the american island, or the Australian island.) I will venture this post is one of the more important things that has been written about Mises in recent history, and my arguments, if not my criticisms will assist us in RESCUING Mises from the lunatic fringe, and RESCUING his work for use in intellectual discourse – as the first attempt at saving Economics through operationalism, the way that science and psychology (if not also mathematics and logic) have been saved by operationalism. **I see myself as rescuing ALL of the Misesian/Hoppeian program from the fruitcake fringe: by laundering German, Jewish and British enlightenment fallacies – the attempt to universalize local evolutionary strategy – rather than simply adopt scientific epistemology (operationalism) as the only neutral tool for the use of studying group evolutionary strategies.** Although it is, I am sure, somewhat difficult for those religiously devoted to immoral, libertine, Rothbardianism to either understand or accept. I am quite sure I do not err in this analysis. A statement which I am aware further taunts libertines. But which my fellow aristocrats (libertarians-proper) both understand and expect from me as a promise. Because the anglo-empirical model of truth telling, quite opposite from the cosmopolitan, is that truth is the name for testimony. And as such I testify that to the best of my knowledge my statement is true. And that I bear the reputational consequences of my promise that this statement is true. This is the polar opposite of the Popperian, Analytic, and Cosmopolitan version of true: that truth is the unknowable province of god alone, and as such we can only ‘do what we can’, and as such are unaccountable for our words. This ethic, this definition of truth, as performative – as operational, is what Kant was searching for, but could not find. And it is why both Jewish and German philosophy are dead ends. And it is why english philosophy became lost through its influence by the germans and the cosmopolitans. We lost a century of philosophy to cosmopolitan pseudoscience in economics, politics, ethics and logic. Germans lost centuries to pseudo-philosophical religio-moralism. Mises can be seen in context as the most successful – if still failed – attempt to rescue german and cosmopolitan thought from its religious constraints. – Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • The Evolution of Cooperation

    1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources. 2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.” 3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation) 4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors. 5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.) 6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.) 7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups. 8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production. 9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct. 10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state. 11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}. 12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production. 13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part *complexity* then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts). 14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority. 15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.