[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Transnational Insurgencies : "Save For Future Use"
[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.
-
Transnational Insurgencies : “Save For Future Use”
[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.
-
Argument, Moral Blindness, and Institutions
[I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.
-
Argument, Moral Blindness, and Institutions
[I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
Stakes In The Heart of Rothbardian Vampires
(status) (against walking-dead libertarianism) [O]K. So praxeology is dead. I’m done with that. Rothbardian ethics and the NAP are dead. I’m done with that. Intersubjectively verifiable private property as insufficient is done. Although I have a long post I’m almost done with on it. I’m pretty much there on performative truth (testimony). The scientific method as a moral constraint under performative truth. And platonism, obscurantism, pseUdoscIence, mysticism, and ‘non-construction’ an non-operational language as immoral AND THEREFORE NOT TRUE. So I’m pretty close on Moral Realism. I have a lot of work on formal grammar and logic of cooperation but that’s drudgery that I think is for the appendix. Because no matter where else I put it in the chapter order it’s a departure from the argument. I still have the problem of stating the argument for the necessary scope of common law as one of eliminating demand for the state, rather than justifying liberty. I am pretty close but I need to work on the clarity of that argument a bit more. That will take me a couple of weeks – albeit I’ll be traveling so I won’t get as much done. It’s been a very fruitful year. Really.
-
Stakes In The Heart of Rothbardian Vampires
(status) (against walking-dead libertarianism) [O]K. So praxeology is dead. I’m done with that. Rothbardian ethics and the NAP are dead. I’m done with that. Intersubjectively verifiable private property as insufficient is done. Although I have a long post I’m almost done with on it. I’m pretty much there on performative truth (testimony). The scientific method as a moral constraint under performative truth. And platonism, obscurantism, pseUdoscIence, mysticism, and ‘non-construction’ an non-operational language as immoral AND THEREFORE NOT TRUE. So I’m pretty close on Moral Realism. I have a lot of work on formal grammar and logic of cooperation but that’s drudgery that I think is for the appendix. Because no matter where else I put it in the chapter order it’s a departure from the argument. I still have the problem of stating the argument for the necessary scope of common law as one of eliminating demand for the state, rather than justifying liberty. I am pretty close but I need to work on the clarity of that argument a bit more. That will take me a couple of weeks – albeit I’ll be traveling so I won’t get as much done. It’s been a very fruitful year. Really.
-
Categories of Knowledge: Improving on Mokyr
Wondering…. Hmmm. I don’t like Mokyr’s categories of knowledge. I tend to state them as “knowledge of construction” and “knowledge of use”. Now he’s been trying to talk about the knowledge economy, so only usable knowledge is meaningful to him. But I think this is the correct expanded hierarchy. 0) Knowledge of identity. (we are aware of it) 1) Knowledge of consequence. (what changes in state we can observe) 2) Knowledge of use. (how to put it under out control to change states) 3) Knowledge of construction. (what its made of and how its made) Curt