[A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.
Source: Original Site Post
-
"All Religions Need A Book"
[A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.
-
“All Religions Need A Book”
[A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.
-
The Enlightenment Aristocracy Of Everybody Vs The Dark Enlightenment Aristocracy Of The Willing
(important piece) [T]he intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone. The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions. But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive. It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange. Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk. We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth. [A]ristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
The Enlightenment Aristocracy Of Everybody Vs The Dark Enlightenment Aristocracy Of The Willing
(important piece) [T]he intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone. The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions. But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive. It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange. Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk. We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth. [A]ristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Propertarianism And Aristocratic Egalitarianism
(important piece) [P]ropertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty. Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom. Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere. This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms. If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy. That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again. Cheers.
-
Propertarianism And Aristocratic Egalitarianism
(important piece) [P]ropertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty. Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom. Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere. This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms. If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy. That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again. Cheers.
-
Reforming Libertarianism Is Pretty Simple Really
—“I think it’s pretty simple: the NAP has proven to be demonstrably insufficient to use as the basis of the common law, because it preserves and licenses immoral and unethical behavior, which impose high transaction costs on in-group members. As such, no such polity is possible, and that is evidenced by the fact that no such polity has ever existed. … Rothbard’s ethics license parasitism, and the high trust society that created liberty requires contribution to production. It’s not complicated. Rothbard was wrong. Its impossible to form a polity on rothbardian ethics. Period.”– [I]n-group ethics necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity require the standard of moral action be based upon a requirement for contribution, which mirrors the human moral instincts for cooperation. if you want an involuntary polity then you can choose any property rights (or lack of) that you want. If you want a high trust polity that organizes voluntarily, and in which production is voluntarily organized, then you must find an institutional means of resolving ethical and moral conflicts as well as criminal conflicts. The only institution that we have yet developed that is capable of providing dispute resolution without the presence of a central authority is independent courts under the common law, with articulated property rights. If property is well defined such that it mirrors ethical and moral prohibitions on free riding in all its forms, all that remains is the voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, productive voluntary exchange free of negative externalities. You may choose a less moral and ethical society. And I am not sure at what point all humans will demand the state, or a sufficient number to form a voluntary polity will prefer anarchy, but I do know that regardless of that point of inflection, this is the means by which to achieve it that we know of. Cheers.
-
Reforming Libertarianism Is Pretty Simple Really
—“I think it’s pretty simple: the NAP has proven to be demonstrably insufficient to use as the basis of the common law, because it preserves and licenses immoral and unethical behavior, which impose high transaction costs on in-group members. As such, no such polity is possible, and that is evidenced by the fact that no such polity has ever existed. … Rothbard’s ethics license parasitism, and the high trust society that created liberty requires contribution to production. It’s not complicated. Rothbard was wrong. Its impossible to form a polity on rothbardian ethics. Period.”– [I]n-group ethics necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity require the standard of moral action be based upon a requirement for contribution, which mirrors the human moral instincts for cooperation. if you want an involuntary polity then you can choose any property rights (or lack of) that you want. If you want a high trust polity that organizes voluntarily, and in which production is voluntarily organized, then you must find an institutional means of resolving ethical and moral conflicts as well as criminal conflicts. The only institution that we have yet developed that is capable of providing dispute resolution without the presence of a central authority is independent courts under the common law, with articulated property rights. If property is well defined such that it mirrors ethical and moral prohibitions on free riding in all its forms, all that remains is the voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, productive voluntary exchange free of negative externalities. You may choose a less moral and ethical society. And I am not sure at what point all humans will demand the state, or a sufficient number to form a voluntary polity will prefer anarchy, but I do know that regardless of that point of inflection, this is the means by which to achieve it that we know of. Cheers.
-
Truth Claims Carry The Burden Of Construction
If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration. And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests. This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction. And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism. You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim. Which is unethical.