(interesting) (tolerance as tax evasion) Do you separate respect for the person from respect for their ideas or do you make the solipsistic error of conflating a persons beliefs which they can change with their physical body which they cannot? One can say: i) that we coexist peacefully, ii) that we compete peacefully, iii) that we cooperate on different ends peacefully, iv) that we cooperate on the same ends peacefully. If someone possesses a catastrophic error, and you wish to cooperate with them, what is the impact of letting them hold on to silly ideas? Well, they can have whatever silly idea they want as long as it doesn’t affect your ability to cooperate on ends together. It is possible to possess ideas, values, beliefs, traditions, myths, metaphysical value judgments that are not merely differences in tastes, but which actively PREVENT cooperation on certain types of ends and means. If your culture denies reality, provides no means of correction of knowledge, provides no means of correction of individual thought, and at the same time, we know we must use science to understand that which we cannot perceive and sense directly, and such that TEACHING COOPERATION ON MEANS IF NOT ENDS In solipsistic argument, respect is for the purpose of raising children who do not yet have the ability to cooperate in the world. At some point we must become adults, or be the wards, subjects and victims of adults forever. One becomes an adult at the very point where one abandons solipsistic argument (the one you’re making probably) and distinguishes between the meaningless errors of children which they may grow out of, and the meaningful errors of adults that they may not grow out of. Tolerance in children is necessary for pedagogy. Tolerance in adults is only logically necessary for tastes, but not for truths. If you do not correct the errors in thinking of yourself and your fellow citizens then you are a conspirator in the conspiracy of ignorance, and a threat to society – and to man. Just as you are a threat to a society and to man if you fail to enforce and adhere to manners, ethics, and morals. TOLERANCE AS “FREE RIDING, CHEATING AND STEALING” If you do not enforce and adhere to manners (ethics of signals), ethics (participatory ethics), and morals (ethics of externalities) then you are not paying the behavioral ‘tax’ for living in a society – you are a tax cheater so to speak in the normative system of costs. if you are less ABLE to pay normative taxes, that is the same as if you are less ABLE to pay real taxes – in both cases these are statements of your willingness and ability. In other words, if you let adults around you believe that which is economically dangerous to the polity, then you are just trying to save yourself the cost of paying for the normative infrastructure, just like any other tax cheat is trying to save himself the cost of paying for physical infrastructure. You can say that you are not competent (productive enough) to pay that normative tax, but if that is so, then you of course, like any other person who evades taxes, no right to speak about norms.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Aristocratic Egalitarian "High Trust" Ethics vs Rothbardian "Ghetto" Ethics
ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.
-
Aristocratic Egalitarian “High Trust” Ethics vs Rothbardian “Ghetto” Ethics
ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.
-
Aristocratic Egalitarian "High Trust" Ethics vs Rothbardian "Ghetto" Ethics
ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.
-
Aristocratic Egalitarian “High Trust” Ethics vs Rothbardian “Ghetto” Ethics
ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.
-
Aristocratic Egalitarianism: The Unique Culture Of The North Sea Peoples
[I] hope to convince you that the argument that follows is very close to the final word on the American experiment, if not the Anglo experiment, and that nullification first, secession second, and civil war third, are the only alternatives to extinction of the unique high trust society of the Northern Europeans. STATEMENTS a) Our values are politically, economically, morally and even genetically, irreconcilable. b) If we do not vehemently fight the opposition both in words, ideas, politics and economics, they will win, and the only high trust society on earth will be rendered extinct. c) Compromise on manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, family structure, and political structure, can only, as it has in the past, lead to surrender and consequential defeat. WHY? [D]emocracy is a means for resolving conflicts in priority among members of an extended family with similar ethics, morals, family structures, and goals. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts over different ends, driven by different ethics, morals, family structures and goals – ONLY THE MARKET CAN. That is the virtue of the market and why protestants and jews rely so heavily on the market: it tolerates diversity of ends, while allowing cooperation on means. One of the virtues of small democratic states in the pre-unification Germanic model (Lotharingian region) is that states must compete for citizens. This small-state network means that, just like foreign quarters in medieval cities, local direct democracy is possible, and people can move elsewhere. And in turn this flexibility forces competition between states. The swiss model, which accommodates people with different languages and preferences, currently operates on this same principle and as yet we have devised no better. If people have no choice then they must use the government as a means of conquering the opposition rather than one of finding a means of voluntary exchange between groups with diverse interests. INTER-MORAL TRADE REQUIRES SEPARATE STATES. [I]f the state acts as the insurer of last resort, redistributor of gains, and monopolistic canon of property rights and obligations, then the state cannot. via democracy. provide a means of reconciling conflicts in ends. it is not possible. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts it can only select priorities. Democracy between people with dissimilar morals and ends, is merely forcible conquest using the force of violence through the proxy of the state as a means of conquest of one group by another. The indirect use of violence is still the use of violence. The market can only function across polities with heterogeneous strategies: manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production, BETWEEN STATES where states can employe trade policy (collective bargaining) and can neutralize the competitive differences between members of the opposing moral codes. NO ALTERNATIVE [A]s such, there is no alternative to defeat except nullification, secession, and the construction of states with different manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production. The divide in the USA is between the Protestant (Northern European, North Sea, Germanic-Scandinavian), high trust ethic, and the rest of the world’s lower trust ethic. The difference in these ethics is the use of the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) and the total prohibition that the ANF places on free-riding and all other discounts. The ANF suppresses, intentionally, and systemically, the reproduction of the lower classes. It is a form of market based eugenics, driven entirely by merit. However, the lower classes and the merchant classes and the political classes, have incentives to instead, increase the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. As such, the difference between these models and the requirement for both (a) marriage, and (b) total financial independence prior to reproduction, is irreconcilable with the rest of the world’s use of the family and the state to seek free riding, rents and a multitude of corruptions to further their family interest. As such the diversely populated state, with non-ANF families, and particularly poor single mothers, is antithetical to the North Sea (protestant) ethic, and is necessary for the rest of the world’s ethic. In fact, the very purpose of the ANF is to suppress if not outlaw the reproduction of these dependent classes. Currently these dependent classes are suppressing the reproduction of the middle and upper middle classes, and ensuring old age poverty for even the hardest working. This moral, ethical, familial, social, political and economic difference is not an arbitrary difference, and the multitude of consequences that arise from this difference in strategies explains the difference in the great waves of indo-european commercial, rational, scientific, productive and military successes (and consequential failures) since the development of pastoralism – despite being a poorer, less populous people, on the edge of the bronze and iron ages. The fantasy of the enlightenment was ‘the aristocracy of everyone’. It was the excuse that the middle classes used to seize power from the landed nobility, now that trade had surpassed agrarianism as the primary means of production and economic wealth. However, this scheme relied upon the perpetuation of the ANF and related social model. Without the perpetuation of the ANF and absolute private property rights, the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ was impossible to maintain under representative democracy. Had the British and Americans not surrendered the house of commons and the house of representatives, or the house of lords and the Senate, and instead had created a house of the ‘unpropertied’ it might have been possible to use the government as a means of establishing trade policy between the classes, and the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ could have survived. But universal democracy and the destruction of the differences between the houses, and the consequential the merger of class interests into a democratic body, thus eliminated the ability to conduct contractual exchanges between classes on the one hand, and gave the unpropertied majority – especially feminists and socialists – the ability to dismantle both the ANF and the private property rights that both sustained and enforced the ANF, and neutralized the difference in reproductive interests of the genders. CONQUEST OF THE ANF-NORTH SEA PEOPLE The redistributive state, under the French totalitarian model, and with the support of Kantian philosophy, followed by increasing numbers of waves including marxists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists, has systematically attacked the ANF’s eugenic suppression of all economic rents and discounts. And the reason for the success, argumentatively, against the ANF system, is that such a system was never written down, but existed only as handed-down, intergenerational tradition, and metaphysical value judgments embedded in moral habits. THE CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS (ALL FREE-RIDING) [I]n economic terms, a discount, is any reduction that you can obtain from the full cost of something under perfect circumstances. This may seem like a confusing terminology, but in economics, the terminology developed for discussing commodities and commodity prices. Commodities are defined where only price determines the difference between one unit and another. Objects that are not commodities, say are used cars. Unless you have a complete video record of the history of the vehicle, it’s not possible to really know what you’re buying and the seller is in a similar position. Horses are even worse since they cannot easily be ‘repaired’. Stolen goods are something yet again. You can buy something very cheaply but that discount comes at a price. Lying is another way to get a discount in an exchange. So a discount is anything you can do or apply to modify a price where you are fully informed and there is no marginal difference between units because you are fully informed. The ANF North Sea social model, is a moral strategy, for the TOTAL SUPPRESSION of ALL DISCOUNTS thereby forcing all individuals into the market and suppressing the reproduction of those that cannot compete in it.
(Note: since writing this piece, I have changed from the use of economic language of referring to “discounts”, to term that is common between economic, anthropological and moral fields: “free riding”. While neither “discounts” or “free-riding” is likely familiar to the general reader, they are effectively synonyms for the same behavior – trying to get something without producing yourself something in exchange.)
Those discounts, in economic terms are: 1. Violence (asymmetry of force) 2. Theft (asymmetry of control) 3. Fraud (false information) 4. Omission (Omitting information) 5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information) 6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction) 7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction) 8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit) 9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons) 10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons) 11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding) 12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking) 13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft) 14. Extortion (Organized direct theft) 15. War (organized violence) The North Sea (Protestant) model suppresses ALL of these, including the ability to seek support from one’s family. It is a unique moral code. The moral code consists in: 1. Requirement that all property be categorized as Private Property 2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange 3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth 4. Requirement for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth) 5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry 6. Requirement for proof of work (you must add value to a thing to profit from it.) 7. Prohibition on familial, tribal, and political free riding and rents. 8. Right of exclusion (boycott, and ostracization) THE REVERSAL OF THE ANF MORAL CODE AND ANF-SOCIAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEM [U]ntil 1960, even with the addition Roosevelt’s socialistic policies, membership in the USA’s ethical and moral system requires adoption of the ANF. It was possible to force this model on immigrants because (a) dislocation from existing family, tribe and culture and (b) the gift of land, and (c) the use of first private, then state credit to allow them to enter into the consumer class. However, with the end of farming, and the rise of ’employment’ most people have now left the ownership culture, except for their homes. Further, the feminist movement has succeeded in advocating support for single mothers, for fostering easy divorces, and for subjecting males to permanent rents without sex, affection, or the ability to accumulate savings for their sustenance in late life. We are now in a situation where nearly half of americans will soon be born to unmarried parents, and doomed to perpetual poverty due to the failure of the ability for couples to form households in order to reduce costs. That is the story of america. As such, the war on the ANF and the Protestant, North Sea, model is nearly complete, both here and in Europe. As such, the ANF ethical system is antithetical to the rest of humanity. And, because of its competitive success against lower trust groups, the world rebels against it. And immigrants, single women, and single mothers, all of whom possess incentives to REVERSE this eugenic system of ethics, fight it at every opportunity. Our system of government, and the aspiration of the enlightenment to create ‘an aristocracy of everyone’ failed rapidly, within one generation, after we added women to the voting pool. Whereby they sought to, in increasing numbers, break the compromise that the nuclear family provided between conflicting female and male reproductive strategies. In increasing numbers, women have voted, and minorities with them, to seek rents against the high trust society and to dismantle the ANF, the compromise between the genders, and the ethical and moral and political system that suppressed the reproductive abilities of the underclasses. As it stands, single women largely determine the outcome of national elections and the female head of household has largely undermined the truce between the genders that is present in marriage, and has systematically undermined the ability of pair-bonded men and women from accumulating and concentrating property behind success, and instead, redistributed from the successful to masses of free riders and rent seekers. French totalitarian humanists (catholics), Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, Postmodernists, Academicists (the church having been replaced by the secular academia’s promotion of the state) and now totalitarian democratic socialist humanists in politics that have been trained by those academics, all have sought to undermine the ANF High trust model. But they have done so without comprehension of the consequences of doing so. It is not possible both to possess a high trust society, and to dismantle the ANF ethical system, nor the marriage tradition that it depends upon. It isnt possible. It is not empirically demonstrable, nor is it rationally arguable. At least, not unless human incentives are infinitely fungible, and there are no laws in economics. Genetics, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and economics have proved the prior – to the great disappointment of progressives. And the failure of socialism and communism, and the requirement for money, prices and incentives, that are created by the capitalist mode of production, along with the current failure of Keynesian economics for political, moral and behavioral reasons, have disproved the latter. We are not infinitely morally fungible, we require incentives to cooperate rather than free-ride, and there are laws to economics seated in the properties of human beings, that are unbridgeable. Namely, we all possess a passionate instinct to suppress disproportionality: unfairness. And that we are happily redistributive within an extended family possessing shared values and signals, but increasingly hostile to those who compete with those values and signals. Diversity is the antithesis of intra-state cooperation, and the utilitarian justification of inter-state cooperation. DIFFERENT STRATEGIES [T]hese reproductive difference are impossible to reconcile. As a politically unpleasant contrast, the same applies to Jewish culture and their Ethics of Critique. Jews, like Northern Europeans also hold a competitive advantage; precisely because they suppress all possible ‘discounts’ amongst themselves, but do not suppress the same portfolio of discounts outside of their group. In fact, they seek at every opportunity to obtain discounts outside of their group, while the host population tries equally to suppress them. ANF North Sea Protestant strategy, on the other hand, is to try to include others in their system by enfranchising them into the culture of prohibited discounts. However, this works to suppress the lower classes, rather than simply prey upon them. But both the ANF Protestant ethical model, and the Jewish ethical model, are disadvantageous of the lower classes. The ANF through suppression of reproduction, and Jewish through exploitation of asymmetry of knowledge, and avoidance of paying into the commons. Of these two models the ANF Protestant can hold territory, but the Jewish cannot, since ANF relies upon numbers and armies, and the jewish relies upon operating as a minority population inside of a land-holding majority, in order to maintain their advantage. Both of these models conflict with the catholic model of systematic free riding, rent seeking and corruption of the lower trust society – precisely what we see in the catholic versus protestant countries. Or as we see in the difference between Catholic, Jewish and Protestant supreme court justice positions. For these reasons both the Protestant ethical model and the Jewish ethical model, are not preferable by the lower classes. And as late as the 1920’s, prior to the arrival of eastern european jews, the ‘ethical difference between a New England Presbyterian and an American Jew, was indistinguishable.” This was not meant as a compliment to either by the catholics. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE VISION OF MANKIND AND OUR ENVIRONMENT [A]re we, in the primitive model, like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, limiting our behavior by the limits that nature places upon us, in the dysgenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation. Or are we improving ourselves, and preserving the planet, via the eugenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation, like our agrarian and pastoral ancestors. Or are we living on some faith that technology will solve this problem for us, via some miracle of transhumanism? Or do we select the strategy that best suits our reproductive interests: the lower classes the first, the middle classes the second, and the intellectuals and elites the third? Because that is precisely the strategy each class uses. SECESSION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION [T]he only possible solution if we are to take advantage of the technical and economic utility of the modern credit and insurance provided by the corporeal state, is to secede into different states each of whom supports the reproductive and economic interests of the different cultures and their moral codes. If we do not, we will either be totally conquered as the romans and greeks were, and we no longer have northern barbarians to restore our culture as the medieval’s did. Universalism, homogeneity, monopoly, are evolutionarily and technologically fragile strategies. Diverse polities cooperating by the market, using the state as collective bargainer, insurer and creditor, is the only solution. Otherwise, as the Chinese, the Byzantines, The Iranians and the Muslims have discovered, the bureaucracy eventually is constrained only by the maximum amount of extraction that it can place upon the population, in an effort to perpetuate itself, and hold other competitors at bay through the promise of war. FUTURE [A]ny study of world his certain that we are approaching some possible civil war., That will occur when the remaining people of the ANF cultures, and those that are allied with them, no longer believe that convincing others of their model will be possible. I believe if they understand this argument, that they will understand that it is no longer possible. This conflict between strategies for our civilization, is the deciding argument of our times. For the next twenty years, demographics will mandate that this conflict continue. We can lose, as did the Romans and the Greeks. We can secede. Or we can fight and reconquer. But we cannot compromise, since these social strategies are incommensurable without the intervention of a state the neutralize differences via trade policy. Just as “Core States” in different civilizations neutralize trade policy between civilizations. The weakness in european civilization is actually tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance without limit is not tolerance but submission. Inclusion without limit is not inclusive it is conquest, in exchange for not paying the high cost of protecting higher generations. And the ANF is counter intuitive and uncomfortable for the rest of humanity. And like the Jews, we are being exterminated, systematically, for our reproductive and social strategy. Despite all the amazing contributions that European civilization has given to the world, NO MAN IS A HERO TO HIS DEBTORS. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev http://www.propertarianism.com/
-
Aristocratic Egalitarianism: The Unique Culture Of The North Sea Peoples
[I] hope to convince you that the argument that follows is very close to the final word on the American experiment, if not the Anglo experiment, and that nullification first, secession second, and civil war third, are the only alternatives to extinction of the unique high trust society of the Northern Europeans. STATEMENTS a) Our values are politically, economically, morally and even genetically, irreconcilable. b) If we do not vehemently fight the opposition both in words, ideas, politics and economics, they will win, and the only high trust society on earth will be rendered extinct. c) Compromise on manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, family structure, and political structure, can only, as it has in the past, lead to surrender and consequential defeat. WHY? [D]emocracy is a means for resolving conflicts in priority among members of an extended family with similar ethics, morals, family structures, and goals. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts over different ends, driven by different ethics, morals, family structures and goals – ONLY THE MARKET CAN. That is the virtue of the market and why protestants and jews rely so heavily on the market: it tolerates diversity of ends, while allowing cooperation on means. One of the virtues of small democratic states in the pre-unification Germanic model (Lotharingian region) is that states must compete for citizens. This small-state network means that, just like foreign quarters in medieval cities, local direct democracy is possible, and people can move elsewhere. And in turn this flexibility forces competition between states. The swiss model, which accommodates people with different languages and preferences, currently operates on this same principle and as yet we have devised no better. If people have no choice then they must use the government as a means of conquering the opposition rather than one of finding a means of voluntary exchange between groups with diverse interests. INTER-MORAL TRADE REQUIRES SEPARATE STATES. [I]f the state acts as the insurer of last resort, redistributor of gains, and monopolistic canon of property rights and obligations, then the state cannot. via democracy. provide a means of reconciling conflicts in ends. it is not possible. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts it can only select priorities. Democracy between people with dissimilar morals and ends, is merely forcible conquest using the force of violence through the proxy of the state as a means of conquest of one group by another. The indirect use of violence is still the use of violence. The market can only function across polities with heterogeneous strategies: manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production, BETWEEN STATES where states can employe trade policy (collective bargaining) and can neutralize the competitive differences between members of the opposing moral codes. NO ALTERNATIVE [A]s such, there is no alternative to defeat except nullification, secession, and the construction of states with different manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production. The divide in the USA is between the Protestant (Northern European, North Sea, Germanic-Scandinavian), high trust ethic, and the rest of the world’s lower trust ethic. The difference in these ethics is the use of the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) and the total prohibition that the ANF places on free-riding and all other discounts. The ANF suppresses, intentionally, and systemically, the reproduction of the lower classes. It is a form of market based eugenics, driven entirely by merit. However, the lower classes and the merchant classes and the political classes, have incentives to instead, increase the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. As such, the difference between these models and the requirement for both (a) marriage, and (b) total financial independence prior to reproduction, is irreconcilable with the rest of the world’s use of the family and the state to seek free riding, rents and a multitude of corruptions to further their family interest. As such the diversely populated state, with non-ANF families, and particularly poor single mothers, is antithetical to the North Sea (protestant) ethic, and is necessary for the rest of the world’s ethic. In fact, the very purpose of the ANF is to suppress if not outlaw the reproduction of these dependent classes. Currently these dependent classes are suppressing the reproduction of the middle and upper middle classes, and ensuring old age poverty for even the hardest working. This moral, ethical, familial, social, political and economic difference is not an arbitrary difference, and the multitude of consequences that arise from this difference in strategies explains the difference in the great waves of indo-european commercial, rational, scientific, productive and military successes (and consequential failures) since the development of pastoralism – despite being a poorer, less populous people, on the edge of the bronze and iron ages. The fantasy of the enlightenment was ‘the aristocracy of everyone’. It was the excuse that the middle classes used to seize power from the landed nobility, now that trade had surpassed agrarianism as the primary means of production and economic wealth. However, this scheme relied upon the perpetuation of the ANF and related social model. Without the perpetuation of the ANF and absolute private property rights, the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ was impossible to maintain under representative democracy. Had the British and Americans not surrendered the house of commons and the house of representatives, or the house of lords and the Senate, and instead had created a house of the ‘unpropertied’ it might have been possible to use the government as a means of establishing trade policy between the classes, and the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ could have survived. But universal democracy and the destruction of the differences between the houses, and the consequential the merger of class interests into a democratic body, thus eliminated the ability to conduct contractual exchanges between classes on the one hand, and gave the unpropertied majority – especially feminists and socialists – the ability to dismantle both the ANF and the private property rights that both sustained and enforced the ANF, and neutralized the difference in reproductive interests of the genders. CONQUEST OF THE ANF-NORTH SEA PEOPLE The redistributive state, under the French totalitarian model, and with the support of Kantian philosophy, followed by increasing numbers of waves including marxists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists, has systematically attacked the ANF’s eugenic suppression of all economic rents and discounts. And the reason for the success, argumentatively, against the ANF system, is that such a system was never written down, but existed only as handed-down, intergenerational tradition, and metaphysical value judgments embedded in moral habits. THE CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS (ALL FREE-RIDING) [I]n economic terms, a discount, is any reduction that you can obtain from the full cost of something under perfect circumstances. This may seem like a confusing terminology, but in economics, the terminology developed for discussing commodities and commodity prices. Commodities are defined where only price determines the difference between one unit and another. Objects that are not commodities, say are used cars. Unless you have a complete video record of the history of the vehicle, it’s not possible to really know what you’re buying and the seller is in a similar position. Horses are even worse since they cannot easily be ‘repaired’. Stolen goods are something yet again. You can buy something very cheaply but that discount comes at a price. Lying is another way to get a discount in an exchange. So a discount is anything you can do or apply to modify a price where you are fully informed and there is no marginal difference between units because you are fully informed. The ANF North Sea social model, is a moral strategy, for the TOTAL SUPPRESSION of ALL DISCOUNTS thereby forcing all individuals into the market and suppressing the reproduction of those that cannot compete in it.
(Note: since writing this piece, I have changed from the use of economic language of referring to “discounts”, to term that is common between economic, anthropological and moral fields: “free riding”. While neither “discounts” or “free-riding” is likely familiar to the general reader, they are effectively synonyms for the same behavior – trying to get something without producing yourself something in exchange.)
Those discounts, in economic terms are: 1. Violence (asymmetry of force) 2. Theft (asymmetry of control) 3. Fraud (false information) 4. Omission (Omitting information) 5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information) 6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction) 7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction) 8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit) 9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons) 10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons) 11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding) 12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking) 13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft) 14. Extortion (Organized direct theft) 15. War (organized violence) The North Sea (Protestant) model suppresses ALL of these, including the ability to seek support from one’s family. It is a unique moral code. The moral code consists in: 1. Requirement that all property be categorized as Private Property 2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange 3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth 4. Requirement for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth) 5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry 6. Requirement for proof of work (you must add value to a thing to profit from it.) 7. Prohibition on familial, tribal, and political free riding and rents. 8. Right of exclusion (boycott, and ostracization) THE REVERSAL OF THE ANF MORAL CODE AND ANF-SOCIAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEM [U]ntil 1960, even with the addition Roosevelt’s socialistic policies, membership in the USA’s ethical and moral system requires adoption of the ANF. It was possible to force this model on immigrants because (a) dislocation from existing family, tribe and culture and (b) the gift of land, and (c) the use of first private, then state credit to allow them to enter into the consumer class. However, with the end of farming, and the rise of ’employment’ most people have now left the ownership culture, except for their homes. Further, the feminist movement has succeeded in advocating support for single mothers, for fostering easy divorces, and for subjecting males to permanent rents without sex, affection, or the ability to accumulate savings for their sustenance in late life. We are now in a situation where nearly half of americans will soon be born to unmarried parents, and doomed to perpetual poverty due to the failure of the ability for couples to form households in order to reduce costs. That is the story of america. As such, the war on the ANF and the Protestant, North Sea, model is nearly complete, both here and in Europe. As such, the ANF ethical system is antithetical to the rest of humanity. And, because of its competitive success against lower trust groups, the world rebels against it. And immigrants, single women, and single mothers, all of whom possess incentives to REVERSE this eugenic system of ethics, fight it at every opportunity. Our system of government, and the aspiration of the enlightenment to create ‘an aristocracy of everyone’ failed rapidly, within one generation, after we added women to the voting pool. Whereby they sought to, in increasing numbers, break the compromise that the nuclear family provided between conflicting female and male reproductive strategies. In increasing numbers, women have voted, and minorities with them, to seek rents against the high trust society and to dismantle the ANF, the compromise between the genders, and the ethical and moral and political system that suppressed the reproductive abilities of the underclasses. As it stands, single women largely determine the outcome of national elections and the female head of household has largely undermined the truce between the genders that is present in marriage, and has systematically undermined the ability of pair-bonded men and women from accumulating and concentrating property behind success, and instead, redistributed from the successful to masses of free riders and rent seekers. French totalitarian humanists (catholics), Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, Postmodernists, Academicists (the church having been replaced by the secular academia’s promotion of the state) and now totalitarian democratic socialist humanists in politics that have been trained by those academics, all have sought to undermine the ANF High trust model. But they have done so without comprehension of the consequences of doing so. It is not possible both to possess a high trust society, and to dismantle the ANF ethical system, nor the marriage tradition that it depends upon. It isnt possible. It is not empirically demonstrable, nor is it rationally arguable. At least, not unless human incentives are infinitely fungible, and there are no laws in economics. Genetics, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and economics have proved the prior – to the great disappointment of progressives. And the failure of socialism and communism, and the requirement for money, prices and incentives, that are created by the capitalist mode of production, along with the current failure of Keynesian economics for political, moral and behavioral reasons, have disproved the latter. We are not infinitely morally fungible, we require incentives to cooperate rather than free-ride, and there are laws to economics seated in the properties of human beings, that are unbridgeable. Namely, we all possess a passionate instinct to suppress disproportionality: unfairness. And that we are happily redistributive within an extended family possessing shared values and signals, but increasingly hostile to those who compete with those values and signals. Diversity is the antithesis of intra-state cooperation, and the utilitarian justification of inter-state cooperation. DIFFERENT STRATEGIES [T]hese reproductive difference are impossible to reconcile. As a politically unpleasant contrast, the same applies to Jewish culture and their Ethics of Critique. Jews, like Northern Europeans also hold a competitive advantage; precisely because they suppress all possible ‘discounts’ amongst themselves, but do not suppress the same portfolio of discounts outside of their group. In fact, they seek at every opportunity to obtain discounts outside of their group, while the host population tries equally to suppress them. ANF North Sea Protestant strategy, on the other hand, is to try to include others in their system by enfranchising them into the culture of prohibited discounts. However, this works to suppress the lower classes, rather than simply prey upon them. But both the ANF Protestant ethical model, and the Jewish ethical model, are disadvantageous of the lower classes. The ANF through suppression of reproduction, and Jewish through exploitation of asymmetry of knowledge, and avoidance of paying into the commons. Of these two models the ANF Protestant can hold territory, but the Jewish cannot, since ANF relies upon numbers and armies, and the jewish relies upon operating as a minority population inside of a land-holding majority, in order to maintain their advantage. Both of these models conflict with the catholic model of systematic free riding, rent seeking and corruption of the lower trust society – precisely what we see in the catholic versus protestant countries. Or as we see in the difference between Catholic, Jewish and Protestant supreme court justice positions. For these reasons both the Protestant ethical model and the Jewish ethical model, are not preferable by the lower classes. And as late as the 1920’s, prior to the arrival of eastern european jews, the ‘ethical difference between a New England Presbyterian and an American Jew, was indistinguishable.” This was not meant as a compliment to either by the catholics. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE VISION OF MANKIND AND OUR ENVIRONMENT [A]re we, in the primitive model, like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, limiting our behavior by the limits that nature places upon us, in the dysgenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation. Or are we improving ourselves, and preserving the planet, via the eugenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation, like our agrarian and pastoral ancestors. Or are we living on some faith that technology will solve this problem for us, via some miracle of transhumanism? Or do we select the strategy that best suits our reproductive interests: the lower classes the first, the middle classes the second, and the intellectuals and elites the third? Because that is precisely the strategy each class uses. SECESSION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION [T]he only possible solution if we are to take advantage of the technical and economic utility of the modern credit and insurance provided by the corporeal state, is to secede into different states each of whom supports the reproductive and economic interests of the different cultures and their moral codes. If we do not, we will either be totally conquered as the romans and greeks were, and we no longer have northern barbarians to restore our culture as the medieval’s did. Universalism, homogeneity, monopoly, are evolutionarily and technologically fragile strategies. Diverse polities cooperating by the market, using the state as collective bargainer, insurer and creditor, is the only solution. Otherwise, as the Chinese, the Byzantines, The Iranians and the Muslims have discovered, the bureaucracy eventually is constrained only by the maximum amount of extraction that it can place upon the population, in an effort to perpetuate itself, and hold other competitors at bay through the promise of war. FUTURE [A]ny study of world his certain that we are approaching some possible civil war., That will occur when the remaining people of the ANF cultures, and those that are allied with them, no longer believe that convincing others of their model will be possible. I believe if they understand this argument, that they will understand that it is no longer possible. This conflict between strategies for our civilization, is the deciding argument of our times. For the next twenty years, demographics will mandate that this conflict continue. We can lose, as did the Romans and the Greeks. We can secede. Or we can fight and reconquer. But we cannot compromise, since these social strategies are incommensurable without the intervention of a state the neutralize differences via trade policy. Just as “Core States” in different civilizations neutralize trade policy between civilizations. The weakness in european civilization is actually tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance without limit is not tolerance but submission. Inclusion without limit is not inclusive it is conquest, in exchange for not paying the high cost of protecting higher generations. And the ANF is counter intuitive and uncomfortable for the rest of humanity. And like the Jews, we are being exterminated, systematically, for our reproductive and social strategy. Despite all the amazing contributions that European civilization has given to the world, NO MAN IS A HERO TO HIS DEBTORS. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev http://www.propertarianism.com/
-
Is The Immorality of Mathematical Platonism Enough To End It.
Math was constructed from, and must, of necessity, consist of a series of operations. And consequently, all mathematics is reducible to a few simple operations. (Which is why computers can calculate.) In practice. everything we can think of can be reduced to adding or removing one, and the test of equality. (As an aside, this is why we can explain more possibilities with mathematics than the physical universe can demonstrate in reality: because the universe does not have this level of freedom due to the apparent complexity of its interacting forces.) The act of adding and subtracting the symbols we call numerals and positional numbers, is an obvious and common example of creating symbols to replace what would be tedious and incomprehensible repetitions. This necessity to use symbols to condense information into usable components (categories) is what our brains need to do. Imagine trying to do all operations by counting? It would be impossible. We could not function without these symbols. Furthermore, describing mathematical equations and proofs as operations is both verbally and syntactically burdensome. And since these operations are largely simple, and can be accurately reduced to symbols (named functions) there is little value in articulating them as operations. So mathematicians have developed a multitude of symbols and names for what are not extant objects, but names of functions (sets of operations) – just as every other discipline creates heavily loaded terms in order to allow informationally dense communication with fewer words. Most ‘numbers’ are anything but: they are names, glyphs and symbols, for functions that consist of large numbers of operations. “The natural numbers exist in nature, but all else is the work of man.” The reason for this complexity is that quantitative, and directional relationships are expressed as ratios, and while some ratios are reducible to numbers, others are not. Those that are not reducible must be expressed as functions. We have not invented a mathematical system that can circumvent this problem. It is possible such a thing cannot be done. Now aside from the practical utility of creating symbols, that obscure the operations, there is a practical value in using these names by disconnecting these names from their operations and from correspondence with any given scale. That is, that disconnection allows one to use the logic of mathematics independent of cause, correspondence and scale, to explore ONLY the properties of the relations between the entities in question. And this turns out to be extremely useful for deducing what causes we do not now. And this extraordinary utility has been responsible for the fact that the discipline has laundered time, causality and scale (precision) from the discipline. But one cannot say that a mathematical statement is true without correspondence with the real world. We can say it is internally consistent (a proof), but not that it is true (descriptive of reality via correspondence). Mathematics when ‘wrong’ most recently, with Cantor’s sets, in which he used imaginary objects, infinity, the excluded middle and the the axiom of choice, to preserve this syntactical convenience of names, and in doing so, completed the diversion of mathematics from a logic of truth (external correspondence), to one that is merely a logic of proof (internal consistency). Cantor’s work came at the expense of correspondence, and by consequence at the expense of truth. ie: mathematics does not determine truths, only proofs, because all correspondence has been removed by these ‘contrivances’, whose initial purpose was convenience, but whose accumulated errors have led to such (frankly, absurd) debates, . So the problem with mathematical platonism, which turns out to be fairly useful for the convenience of practitioners, is not so much a technical problem but a MORAL ONE. First, mathematicians, even the best, rarely grasp this concept. Second, since, because it is EASIER to construct mathematical proofs than any other form of logic, it is the gold standard for other forms of logic. And the envy of other disciplines. And as such mathematical platonism has ‘bled’ into other envious fields, the same way that Physics has bled into economics. Worse, this multi-axial new mysticism has been adopted by philosophers from Kant to the Frankfurt school to the postmodernists, to contemporary totalitarian humanists as a vehicle for reinserting arational mysticism into political debate – as a means of obtaining power. Quite contrary to academic opinion, all totalitarianism is, is catholicism restated in non-religious terms, with the academy replacing the church as the constructor of obscurant language. I suspect this fairly significant error is what has plagued the physics community, but we have found no alternative to current approaches. Albeit, I expect, that if we retrained mathematicians, physicists, and economists to require operational language in the expression of mathematical relations, that whatever error we are making in our understanding of physics would emerge within a generation. No infinity can exist. Because no operation can be performed infinitely. We can however, adjust the precision and scale of any proof to suit the context, since any mathematical expression, consists of ratios that, if correspond to reality, we can arbitrarily adjust for increasing precision. Mathematics cannot claim truth without correspondence. Correspondence in measures is a function of scale and the UTILITY of precision, in the CONTEXT of which the operation is calculated (limit). A language of mathematics that is described independent of scale in given context, can be correctly stated. It need not be magian. Fields can still be understood to be imaginary patterns. But the entire reason that we find such things interesting, is a folly of the mind, no different from the illusion of movement in a film. The real world exists. We are weak computers of property in pursuit of our reproduction and amusement. We developed many forms of instrumentalism to extend our weak abilities. We must use instruments and methods to reduce to analogies to experience, those things which we cannot directly do so. It’s just that simple. AGAINST THE PLATONIC (IMAGINARY) WORLD Why must we support imaginary objects, as extant? Especially when the constructive argument (intuitionist) in operational language, can provide equal explanatory power? Why must we rely on ZFC+AC when we have recursive math, or when we can explain all mathematics in operational language without loss of context, scale, precision and utility? Just ’cause it’s easier. But that complexity is a defense against obscurantism and platonism. So it is merely a matter of cost. I understand Popper as trying to solve a problem of meta ethics, rather than anything particularly scientific. And I see most of his work as doing the best he could for the purposes that I’ve stated. Anyone who disagrees with me would have to disagree with my premies and my argument, not rely on the existence of platonist entities (magic) in order to win such an argument. That this is impossible, is at least something that I understand if no one else yet does. I don’t so much need someone to agree with me as constantly improve my argument so that I can test and harden it until it is unassailable or defeated. I think that defeating this argument is going to be very, very, difficult. TIME AND OPERATIONS (ACTIONS) IN TIME One cannot state that abstract ideas can be constructed independent of time, or even that they could be identified without changes in state over time. Or that thought can occur without the passage of time. Or consciousness can occur without the passage of time. Whether I make one choice or another is not material. This question is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of possibility. I can make no choice without the passage of time. I think that the only certain knowledge consists of negations, and that all the rest is conjecture. This is the only moral position to take. And it is the only moral position since argument exists for the purpose of persuasion, and persuasion for cooperation. I keep seeing this sort of desire to promote the rather obvious idea that induction is nonsense – yet everyone uses it, as a tremendous diversion from the fact that induction is necessary for action in real time, whenever the cost of not acting is higher than the cost of acting. Description, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing and intuitive choice are just descriptions of the processes we must use given the amount of information at our disposal. Science has no urgency, and life threatening emergencies do. Popper (and CR-ists for that matter) seem to want to perpetuate either mysticism, or skepticism as religion, rather than make the very simple point that the demands for ‘truth’ increase and decrease given the necessity of acting in time. I guess that I could take a psychological detour into why people would want to do this. But I suspect that I am correct (as I stated in one of these posts) that popper was, as part of his era, trying to react against the use of science and academia to replace the coercive power of the church. So he restated skepticism by establishing very high criteria for scientific truth. And all the nonsense that continues to be written about his work seek to read into platonic tea leaves, when the facts are quite SIMPLE. (Back to Argumentation Ethics at this point.) The fact is that humans must act in real time and as the urgency of action increases so does the demand for truth. Conversely, as the demand for cooperation increases, the demand for truth increases. Finally at the top of the scale we have science, which in itself is an expensive pursuit, and as such one is forbidden to externalize costs to other scientists. (Although if we look at papers this doesn’t actually work that well except at the very top margin.) THE QUESTION IS ONE OF COOPERATION The problem is ECONOMIC AND COOPERATIVE AND MORAL, not scientific. It’s just that simple. We cannot disconnect argument from cooperation without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect math from context without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect numbers from identity without entering the platonic. Each form of logic constrains the other. But the logic that constrains them all, is action. Without action, we end up with the delusions we spend most of philosophical discourse on. It’s all nonsense. I understand the difference between the real and the unreal, and the necessity of our various logics as instruments for the reduction of that which we cannot comprehend (sympathize with) to analogies to experience that we can comprehend ( sympathize with). Which is profound if you grasp it. THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS AND ECONOMY OF LANGUAGE If you cannot describe something as human action, then you do not understand it. Operational language is the most important, and least articulated canon of science. I do not argue against the economy of language. I argue against the loss of causality and correspondence that accompanies repeated use of economizing terms. ( I am pretty sure I put a bullet in this topic along with apriorism in economics. ) MORAL STANDARDS OF TRUTH Requiring a higher standard of truth places a higher barrier on cooperation. This is most important in matters of involuntary transfer, such as taxation or social and moral norms. Religions place an impossible standard of truth. This is why they are used so effectively to resist the state. Religious doctrine reliant upon faith is argumentatively inviolable. As such, no cooperation can be asked or offered outside of their established terms. … It’s brilliant really. Its why religious groups can resist the predation of the state. I would prefer instead we relied upon a prohibition on obscurant language and the requisite illustration of involuntary transfers, such that exchanges were easily made possible, and discounts (thefts) made nearly impossible. This is, the correct criteria for CR, not the platonic one that is assumed. In this light CR looks correct in practice if incorrect in argument. (There. I did it. Took me a bit.) Curt Doolittle
-
Is The Immorality of Mathematical Platonism Enough To End It.
Math was constructed from, and must, of necessity, consist of a series of operations. And consequently, all mathematics is reducible to a few simple operations. (Which is why computers can calculate.) In practice. everything we can think of can be reduced to adding or removing one, and the test of equality. (As an aside, this is why we can explain more possibilities with mathematics than the physical universe can demonstrate in reality: because the universe does not have this level of freedom due to the apparent complexity of its interacting forces.) The act of adding and subtracting the symbols we call numerals and positional numbers, is an obvious and common example of creating symbols to replace what would be tedious and incomprehensible repetitions. This necessity to use symbols to condense information into usable components (categories) is what our brains need to do. Imagine trying to do all operations by counting? It would be impossible. We could not function without these symbols. Furthermore, describing mathematical equations and proofs as operations is both verbally and syntactically burdensome. And since these operations are largely simple, and can be accurately reduced to symbols (named functions) there is little value in articulating them as operations. So mathematicians have developed a multitude of symbols and names for what are not extant objects, but names of functions (sets of operations) – just as every other discipline creates heavily loaded terms in order to allow informationally dense communication with fewer words. Most ‘numbers’ are anything but: they are names, glyphs and symbols, for functions that consist of large numbers of operations. “The natural numbers exist in nature, but all else is the work of man.” The reason for this complexity is that quantitative, and directional relationships are expressed as ratios, and while some ratios are reducible to numbers, others are not. Those that are not reducible must be expressed as functions. We have not invented a mathematical system that can circumvent this problem. It is possible such a thing cannot be done. Now aside from the practical utility of creating symbols, that obscure the operations, there is a practical value in using these names by disconnecting these names from their operations and from correspondence with any given scale. That is, that disconnection allows one to use the logic of mathematics independent of cause, correspondence and scale, to explore ONLY the properties of the relations between the entities in question. And this turns out to be extremely useful for deducing what causes we do not now. And this extraordinary utility has been responsible for the fact that the discipline has laundered time, causality and scale (precision) from the discipline. But one cannot say that a mathematical statement is true without correspondence with the real world. We can say it is internally consistent (a proof), but not that it is true (descriptive of reality via correspondence). Mathematics when ‘wrong’ most recently, with Cantor’s sets, in which he used imaginary objects, infinity, the excluded middle and the the axiom of choice, to preserve this syntactical convenience of names, and in doing so, completed the diversion of mathematics from a logic of truth (external correspondence), to one that is merely a logic of proof (internal consistency). Cantor’s work came at the expense of correspondence, and by consequence at the expense of truth. ie: mathematics does not determine truths, only proofs, because all correspondence has been removed by these ‘contrivances’, whose initial purpose was convenience, but whose accumulated errors have led to such (frankly, absurd) debates, . So the problem with mathematical platonism, which turns out to be fairly useful for the convenience of practitioners, is not so much a technical problem but a MORAL ONE. First, mathematicians, even the best, rarely grasp this concept. Second, since, because it is EASIER to construct mathematical proofs than any other form of logic, it is the gold standard for other forms of logic. And the envy of other disciplines. And as such mathematical platonism has ‘bled’ into other envious fields, the same way that Physics has bled into economics. Worse, this multi-axial new mysticism has been adopted by philosophers from Kant to the Frankfurt school to the postmodernists, to contemporary totalitarian humanists as a vehicle for reinserting arational mysticism into political debate – as a means of obtaining power. Quite contrary to academic opinion, all totalitarianism is, is catholicism restated in non-religious terms, with the academy replacing the church as the constructor of obscurant language. I suspect this fairly significant error is what has plagued the physics community, but we have found no alternative to current approaches. Albeit, I expect, that if we retrained mathematicians, physicists, and economists to require operational language in the expression of mathematical relations, that whatever error we are making in our understanding of physics would emerge within a generation. No infinity can exist. Because no operation can be performed infinitely. We can however, adjust the precision and scale of any proof to suit the context, since any mathematical expression, consists of ratios that, if correspond to reality, we can arbitrarily adjust for increasing precision. Mathematics cannot claim truth without correspondence. Correspondence in measures is a function of scale and the UTILITY of precision, in the CONTEXT of which the operation is calculated (limit). A language of mathematics that is described independent of scale in given context, can be correctly stated. It need not be magian. Fields can still be understood to be imaginary patterns. But the entire reason that we find such things interesting, is a folly of the mind, no different from the illusion of movement in a film. The real world exists. We are weak computers of property in pursuit of our reproduction and amusement. We developed many forms of instrumentalism to extend our weak abilities. We must use instruments and methods to reduce to analogies to experience, those things which we cannot directly do so. It’s just that simple. AGAINST THE PLATONIC (IMAGINARY) WORLD Why must we support imaginary objects, as extant? Especially when the constructive argument (intuitionist) in operational language, can provide equal explanatory power? Why must we rely on ZFC+AC when we have recursive math, or when we can explain all mathematics in operational language without loss of context, scale, precision and utility? Just ’cause it’s easier. But that complexity is a defense against obscurantism and platonism. So it is merely a matter of cost. I understand Popper as trying to solve a problem of meta ethics, rather than anything particularly scientific. And I see most of his work as doing the best he could for the purposes that I’ve stated. Anyone who disagrees with me would have to disagree with my premies and my argument, not rely on the existence of platonist entities (magic) in order to win such an argument. That this is impossible, is at least something that I understand if no one else yet does. I don’t so much need someone to agree with me as constantly improve my argument so that I can test and harden it until it is unassailable or defeated. I think that defeating this argument is going to be very, very, difficult. TIME AND OPERATIONS (ACTIONS) IN TIME One cannot state that abstract ideas can be constructed independent of time, or even that they could be identified without changes in state over time. Or that thought can occur without the passage of time. Or consciousness can occur without the passage of time. Whether I make one choice or another is not material. This question is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of possibility. I can make no choice without the passage of time. I think that the only certain knowledge consists of negations, and that all the rest is conjecture. This is the only moral position to take. And it is the only moral position since argument exists for the purpose of persuasion, and persuasion for cooperation. I keep seeing this sort of desire to promote the rather obvious idea that induction is nonsense – yet everyone uses it, as a tremendous diversion from the fact that induction is necessary for action in real time, whenever the cost of not acting is higher than the cost of acting. Description, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing and intuitive choice are just descriptions of the processes we must use given the amount of information at our disposal. Science has no urgency, and life threatening emergencies do. Popper (and CR-ists for that matter) seem to want to perpetuate either mysticism, or skepticism as religion, rather than make the very simple point that the demands for ‘truth’ increase and decrease given the necessity of acting in time. I guess that I could take a psychological detour into why people would want to do this. But I suspect that I am correct (as I stated in one of these posts) that popper was, as part of his era, trying to react against the use of science and academia to replace the coercive power of the church. So he restated skepticism by establishing very high criteria for scientific truth. And all the nonsense that continues to be written about his work seek to read into platonic tea leaves, when the facts are quite SIMPLE. (Back to Argumentation Ethics at this point.) The fact is that humans must act in real time and as the urgency of action increases so does the demand for truth. Conversely, as the demand for cooperation increases, the demand for truth increases. Finally at the top of the scale we have science, which in itself is an expensive pursuit, and as such one is forbidden to externalize costs to other scientists. (Although if we look at papers this doesn’t actually work that well except at the very top margin.) THE QUESTION IS ONE OF COOPERATION The problem is ECONOMIC AND COOPERATIVE AND MORAL, not scientific. It’s just that simple. We cannot disconnect argument from cooperation without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect math from context without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect numbers from identity without entering the platonic. Each form of logic constrains the other. But the logic that constrains them all, is action. Without action, we end up with the delusions we spend most of philosophical discourse on. It’s all nonsense. I understand the difference between the real and the unreal, and the necessity of our various logics as instruments for the reduction of that which we cannot comprehend (sympathize with) to analogies to experience that we can comprehend ( sympathize with). Which is profound if you grasp it. THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS AND ECONOMY OF LANGUAGE If you cannot describe something as human action, then you do not understand it. Operational language is the most important, and least articulated canon of science. I do not argue against the economy of language. I argue against the loss of causality and correspondence that accompanies repeated use of economizing terms. ( I am pretty sure I put a bullet in this topic along with apriorism in economics. ) MORAL STANDARDS OF TRUTH Requiring a higher standard of truth places a higher barrier on cooperation. This is most important in matters of involuntary transfer, such as taxation or social and moral norms. Religions place an impossible standard of truth. This is why they are used so effectively to resist the state. Religious doctrine reliant upon faith is argumentatively inviolable. As such, no cooperation can be asked or offered outside of their established terms. … It’s brilliant really. Its why religious groups can resist the predation of the state. I would prefer instead we relied upon a prohibition on obscurant language and the requisite illustration of involuntary transfers, such that exchanges were easily made possible, and discounts (thefts) made nearly impossible. This is, the correct criteria for CR, not the platonic one that is assumed. In this light CR looks correct in practice if incorrect in argument. (There. I did it. Took me a bit.) Curt Doolittle
-
Contra David Miller : Confusing Fact and Value
==DAVID MILLER== Regarding theories: –“they are nothing more than conjectures or guesses about the unknown state of the world.”– –“the principal function of experience in science is to eliminate mistakes”– –“The principal function of science in technology is again to eliminate mistakes.”– –“Neither experience in science, nor science in technology, can determine that a problem has been solved in an ideal way. The best that they can tell us is that we could have done worse.”– -David Miller ==COMMENT AND CRITICISM== I want to state David Miller’s arguments somewhat differently, by converting them from the language of perception and experience, to the language of action and economics in time. The reason is that objective language assumes discounts that are the equivalent of something more than platonism and less than magic. COSTS Solving something an ‘ideal way’ cannot be stated without consideration of time and cost. As such, the ‘idea way’ that something can be done to satisfy a need is the ideal at that is available at the lowest cost at that moment in time. Induction was a biological necessity given that costs for organisms competing in nature are extremely high, and kept high through competition, just as costs of time and opportunity are very high in the market due to competition. But, induction tells us only about available opportunities for further action, neither about (a) the probability of expanding explanatory power, or about (b) the limit of utility in expanding explanatory power. Induction as a statement of PROBABILITY is an example of the ludic fallacy. If we could determine probabilities that would mean the set of possible permutations would be finite. But given that we have no idea what the ideal solution is to most problems we cannot conduct probabilities. But this criticism is not the only one available. Since efficiency of any given figure action in any given future where we have more knowledge, is determined by the total cost of arriving at that minus the intermediate rewards of production. Further, there are points at which no further increase in precision (efficiency) provides a return that covers the cost of the investment, until we invent additional utility to be obtained from the investment that has been made to date. However, for the purposes of action, our guesswork is informed by induction as a means of identifying opportunities for expansion of our efforts, and it does tell us what further actions are available for us to investigate, and test. THE LOGICS AS INSTRUMENTATION The principle function of the ‘logics’ and ‘methods’ is to reduce error through physical and logical instrumentation. That instrumentation allows us to test our imagination (or theories) against the real world, and limits our mind’s biases in the interpretation of those real world stimuli. This testing is made possible by reducing that which we could not sense without instrument and method, to analogy to experience which we can sense, perceive, compare and test given the help of symbol, measure, instrument and method. CERTAINTY OF FALSEHOOD, UNCERTAINTY OF TRUTH While we cannot prove that a general statement about the world are true, we can prove that specific instances of statements about the world are false. As such, we can say that science has demonstrated X to be false, but we cannot state that science has demonstrated X to be true. We can say however, that given our current knowledge the current candidates for truth available for further action are A, B and C. And we can also say that any further refinement of A,B or C would not sufficiently change the current argument about X, such that it would make any difference at this moment. TRUTH CANNOT BE USED FOR ARGUMENT, ONLY FALSEHOOD You cannot be sufficiently certain of anything such that you can use it in an argument to demand my agreement. You can only seek to obtain my consent by eliminating the possibility or desirability of my position in contrast to yours. This constrains science to voluntary consent, and does not allow science to override the contract for voluntary cooperation we enter when we enter into debate. THE FALSE MYSTIQUE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. **The difference between physical science and engineering, as between mathematics and computer science, is simply the UTILITARIAN VALUE we attach to either (a) the product of the test and (b) the extension of deductive power that results from the test. In either case the method is the the same.** Scientific language is LOADED with these value judgements, and it is this LOADING of scientific language with VALUE JUDGEMENTS that generally distracts us (pretty much all of us) from the fact that there is no difference at all in our actions or methods no matter what theory we pursue, but there is a great difference in which products we value. Science can be LOADED with this language because unlike other fields, science ignores costs in exchange for pursuing truths. Whereas, in all other disciplines, costs and utility are the equivalent of truth, since truth is time dependent for the purpose of satisfying human wants and desires. ***By failing to articulate our ideas in operational language we hide these incentives, and reasons from our discourse. And we are rapidly confused when we argue as if they are differences in fact, when they are but a difference in value.*** As such: **As opportunity costs decrease, demand for truth increases.** **As opportunity costs increase, demand for utility increases.** This is the supply demand curve for truth and utility. An individual who seeks to estimate his own costs and utility is different from another individual demanding costs from third parties regardless of utility. A DIFFERENCE ONLY IN VALUE OF OUTPUTS It is a subjective preference, but not a difference in method. All theorizing is the same. We may not make truth claims about our theories, but that does not mean that we cannot LOGICALLY choose how to act on them. IGNORING COSTS AS CHEAP STATUS SIGNALING I guess I should say more clearly that I see scientific pursuit of truth independent of opportunity cost, and necessity for production, as one of the ultimate signs of conspicuous consumption and privilege. The same applies to progressives who ignore the cost of norms and treat them as non-existent, as a means of signaling their conspicuous consumption. One of the externalities produced by western aristocratic philosophy, and its permanent placement in our values, is the demonstration of one’s independence from the market for norms, and the market for production, as the ultimate source of signaling their conspicuous consumption. This is the level that all artists, journalists, and public intellectuals all seek as well. REWARDS FOR ORGANIZING PRODUCTION, INFORMATION, RENTS AND STATUS SEEKING Unfortunately, the material rewards for ORGANIZING PRODUCTION in the private sector, and ORGANIZING EXTORTION in the private sector, are more materially rewarding, than organizing RENTS and STATUS SEEKING in the non-commercial sector. Just as economists should be better trained as philosophers, most philosophers would better trained if they understood economics. And both would be better of if they understood all human behavior was in fact, economic: equilibrium exchanges in pursuit of signals, opportunities, alliances, and mates. So as far as I can tell, the scientific method is a continuous one independent of any form of problems solving, and argument to the contrary is the use of obscurant language to ridicule others for the fact that they must pay costs in time, and that scientists can signal their privilege of acting independently in time – and nothing else. Science may be useful for signaling purposes, but we should not let our signaling purposes interfere with our understanding that all theoretical processes work the same, and must work that way, and that the criticism that we make of one another is over the ECONOMICS of using knowledge for the purpose of persuasion and signaling. As such, the output of any process can be easily categorized as (a) amusement, (b) production (transformation), (c ) knowledge and (d) signal , – or some combination of all four, in exchange for material and/or opportunity costs in real time. But truth, and honesty, and ethics dictate that we understand that any process we follow consist in the value we attach to each output and who benefits from each output at the cost of whom? — Curt Doolittle