Dunning Kruger Never Stops To the idiot, the world conspires or lies. To the average, the more powerful conspires or lies. To the intelligent, the more intelligent conspires or lies. Differences in knowledge and understanding that are to you unimaginable are to those with far more just normal risk assessments they would make. I published this graphic many years ago in an attempt to explain the problem of false positive ethics and false negative ethics. The problem is, that when you FAIL, you look unethical, whereas if you succeed your look brilliant or heroic. I’m a more than ruthless guy. I don’t do symbolism. So I take the risk whether it will result in a false negative or not. Why? Skin in the game. You cannot cooperate on equal terms with unequals. Some men must be led if greatness is to be achieved. Sometimes we die in our attempt at greatness.
Theme: Deception
-
The New Right: Returning to Aristocratic Egalitarianism
(text version) (important) (positive positioning) [It’s what we do. Own it.] Let me stay on message: As a philosopher, I manufacture intellectual weaponry in the war against lies. And I strive to speak truthfully about the causes of the decline of western civilization, and how to repair them permanently. An effort that requires I surface and expose many of the competing enlightenment fallacies, liars, ad lies, that we, from each cultural tradition, hold dear. And this falsification, I admit, I perform prosecutorially, because I believe this is a war not just for western civilization, but for the vast benefits that western civilization has delivered to mankind – often over most of mankind’s passionate objections. But make no mistake that I remain an Aristocratic Egalitarian, a Classical Liberal, and therefore a Libertarian, an ‘Operationalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ and a universal Nationalist. Where Aristocratic Egalitarian means the natural aristocracy struggles to prevent rule by anyone other than the natural, common, judge-discovered law. Classical Liberal Dissenter means the use of houses of government to construct a market for exchanges in pursuit of mutually beneficial competitive commons, and that we need not agree for groups to construct a commons, only fail to find lawful reason to prevent it. Libertarian means rule of law, using natural, judge-discovered, common law, and voluntary association, disassociation, voluntary cooperation, non-cooperation, via voluntary exchange. Operationalist means that all contract, regulation, legislation, and judge discovered law, must be written in strictly constructed, operational language, operationally articulated from first principles of non-imposition of costs. Universal Nationalist means that I acknowledge that the traditions, institutions, laws, norms, family structures, and policies, required by different tribal groups differ to the extent that we are all better off, happier, and in less conflict, if our governments create commons for the needs of our tribes, rather than to attempt to justify a common good that can only, in the end, seek to make everyone equally unsatisfied. At some point in the past, scale was of such military importance, and the investment necessary to raise people out of illiteracy and poverty, that the benefits of large states were greater than the disadvantages of them. But in the current era, where men with small arms, and a small number of nuclear weapons makes conquest of neighboring states all but impossible, and the cost of corruption in large governments, and the dissatisfaction of increasingly different peoples, whose desires have been let loose by adoption of consumer capitalism, and who struggle to achieve them are constrained by large social and political orders, designed to assist in the transition to modernity, not produce local excellences for local differences. Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
The New Right: Returning to Aristocratic Egalitarianism
(text version) (important) (positive positioning) [It’s what we do. Own it.] Let me stay on message: As a philosopher, I manufacture intellectual weaponry in the war against lies. And I strive to speak truthfully about the causes of the decline of western civilization, and how to repair them permanently. An effort that requires I surface and expose many of the competing enlightenment fallacies, liars, ad lies, that we, from each cultural tradition, hold dear. And this falsification, I admit, I perform prosecutorially, because I believe this is a war not just for western civilization, but for the vast benefits that western civilization has delivered to mankind – often over most of mankind’s passionate objections. But make no mistake that I remain an Aristocratic Egalitarian, a Classical Liberal, and therefore a Libertarian, an ‘Operationalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ and a universal Nationalist. Where Aristocratic Egalitarian means the natural aristocracy struggles to prevent rule by anyone other than the natural, common, judge-discovered law. Classical Liberal Dissenter means the use of houses of government to construct a market for exchanges in pursuit of mutually beneficial competitive commons, and that we need not agree for groups to construct a commons, only fail to find lawful reason to prevent it. Libertarian means rule of law, using natural, judge-discovered, common law, and voluntary association, disassociation, voluntary cooperation, non-cooperation, via voluntary exchange. Operationalist means that all contract, regulation, legislation, and judge discovered law, must be written in strictly constructed, operational language, operationally articulated from first principles of non-imposition of costs. Universal Nationalist means that I acknowledge that the traditions, institutions, laws, norms, family structures, and policies, required by different tribal groups differ to the extent that we are all better off, happier, and in less conflict, if our governments create commons for the needs of our tribes, rather than to attempt to justify a common good that can only, in the end, seek to make everyone equally unsatisfied. At some point in the past, scale was of such military importance, and the investment necessary to raise people out of illiteracy and poverty, that the benefits of large states were greater than the disadvantages of them. But in the current era, where men with small arms, and a small number of nuclear weapons makes conquest of neighboring states all but impossible, and the cost of corruption in large governments, and the dissatisfaction of increasingly different peoples, whose desires have been let loose by adoption of consumer capitalism, and who struggle to achieve them are constrained by large social and political orders, designed to assist in the transition to modernity, not produce local excellences for local differences. Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
The purpose of science is to prevent error, bias, and deceit. The rest is just c
The purpose of science is to prevent error, bias, and deceit. The rest is just curiosity at work.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 07:04:00 UTC
-
Coming To The Rescue And Correcting The Libertine Narrative (Fraud) Of History.
(Beware the thief in moral disguise) https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/ 1 – THE COURSE OF HISTORY Domesticating man and woman by the use of organized violence to suppress local parasitism that harms production by increasing transaction costs, to create markets to decrease opportunity costs, and to collect revenues for that suppression of local parasitism, decrease of transaction costs, and decrease in opportunity costs. This suppression of local parasitism which impedes cooperation, and the imposition of law which leaves productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange as the only possible means of survival, can be positioned optimistically as ‘civilizing man’, charitably as ‘domesticating man’, and uncharitably as the martial elite profiting from human husbandry. The net result of domestication is that those regions most successful at human human husbandry, domestication, or civilization – however you choose to cast it – produced the highest trust, highest economic velocity, highest innovation, and the FASTEST evolution of the standard of living in both the ancient and modern worlds. At extremely high cost to those populations who produced that rate of evolutionary innovation. High trust was a very expensive institution to develop using the incremental expansion of the common law for the purpose of preventing retaliation spirals. (feuds). Libertine Libertarians, practicing the non-aggression against material property (intersubjectively verifiable property) expressly prohibit mandatory payment for commons despite making use of markets (free riding) that these commons construct; Furthermore libertine libertarians expressly preserve the rights of blackmail (non productive), fraud (not fully informed), irresponsibility (non-warranty), usury (entrapment), as and even enslavement if it’s voluntarily agreed to, because libertine libertarians claim they are not responsible for the consequences (externalities, and unintended consequences) of their actions. For example, ancient world pagans and new world scientists, using the Non-Parasitism and Non-Retaliation rules of landed warriors innovated at a rate commensurate with the spread of literacy, and their universal ethic of earned -enfranchisement through defense of the commons. Jews by contrast contributed nothing to mankind’s commons in two thousand years, despite their near universal literacy – in no small part because of their voluntarism rather than non retaliationism, their dual ethics, and their specialization in crafts of privatization of commons and socialization of losses. Especially after the Templars, and the west’s first international banking system were destroyed by the Church in order to escape the Pope and his brothers’ debt. Why does a group that pays heavily for a commons 2 – HARMONY VS CONFLICT (THE DECEIT: FRAMING OF HARMONY AND CONFLICT INSTEAD OF UNIVERSALISM VS FAMILISM AND TRIBALISM) It is better if we COOPERATE PRODUCTIVELY than if we engage in conflict that destroys capital and opportunity. It is not better if some of us cooperate productively and contribute to the commons, and some of us pretend to cooperate on one hand and privatize the commons or free ride upon that commons on the other. The purpose of rothbardian libertarianism is to justify parasitism on commons. The purpose of the harmony vs conflict deception is to use suggestion of equal participation in reproductive, productive, and common goods while acting unequally in the participation of reproductive, productive, and common goods. (almost all libertine libertarianism is an attempt to justify parasitic actions of the unequal, while making the moral claim that one is equal in contribution to the civic order we call political government, normative society, and commercial market. Libertine libertarianism is merely another fraud like marxism for the same purpose: theft. This kind of analysis is how westerners must change our high trust framework, so that we are far more analytic, and far more skeptical, about moral pretenses, which are anything but moral – they are appeals to our morality so that we can be defrauded from. ALL GROUPS COMPETE GENETICALLY AND ALL DEMONSTRATE KIN SELECTION. And the less domesticated peoples are always a threat to the more domesticated peoples. PERIOD. 3 – THE DESIGNED VS SELF ORGANIZING DECEPTION Is a false dichotomy. The designed, vs the discover and institutional, vs the normative and adaptive The most successful groups produces three categories of institutions are those we constantly seek to improve: Law(prohibiting), Production(trading), Religion(teaching). That we cannot design law, religion, and production is patently false. We can Limit parasitism, we can advocate cooperation and knowledge, and we can engage in PRODUCTIVE exchange. If we are to say, can we design institutions much more precise than this? Well we certainly have: weights and measures, property rights, legal processes, reason and science rather than mysticism, false moralism, and predatory deceit. We can even industrialize institutions like banking, rule of law, and education. But how precise can we be with them? Well, we cannot design what we should or must do, but we can design what we should not or must not do. That is how we incrementally domesticated mankind into productivity. (We should ask libertine libertarians why they think blackmail – which is voluntary but retaliatory – is moral.) So regarding institutions of cooperation we cannot always say Should and must except preventatively, we can say could and can, and we can say should not and must not. so again, self organization deception is an attempt to preserve the ability to engage in parasitism while under the pretense of moral equality. Again. Libertine libertarians are just parasites. 4 – THE DECEPTION OF FREE MOVEMENT AND FREE TRADE What the classical liberals discovered is that all other things being equal, protectionism in the caste of commodities caused more harm than free trade in commodities caused harm. They did not say all free trade is a good, and no group demonstrates unregulated free trade as a good. In fact the major struggle world wide remains, at every level, the problem of preventing asymmetries in negotiating power that cause externalities and indirect consequences – or in case of economic warfare – substantial externalities and indirect consequences. So it is true that we cannot use protection to extract prices increases through regulation, while at the same time we CAN use protection to prevent costs by externality and indirect consequences. And that is precisely what humans around the world do. We must understand that Rothbardian libertine libertarianism advocates parasitic existence imposing costs upon others, and is profoundly immoral in theory and practice. Wherever possible the libertine seeks to benefit from the high cost of a high trust market while externalizing all the costs that he can from his participation in the market. In other words, a rothbardian libertine libertarian advocates for fraud. 5 – THE OPPRESSION FALLACY REVISITED: EMANCIPATION AND PROGRESS What occurred as a consequence of high trust english common law, was that bacon applied the rigor of that law to the sciences and invented empiricism. Upon the invention of the printing press, a thousand year dark age where the church held men in illiterate, was ended, and knowledge spread across the civilized world, leading first to the agrarian and then to the industrial revolution. Now that the industrial revolution was possible, we could afford to educate and employ more people – albeit slowly – until the petrochemical revolution, which provided us the energy equivalent of endless slave labor that we did not need to clothe and feed. So we could attempt to provide opportunity to many members of most classes who had sufficient character to participate in organized employment. Unfortunately, these people were met with a new ideology of socialism that stated that they had been and were oppressed and that they could rule themselves under the same kind of order that they had in their villages. These people used democracy to vote their reproductive strategy of parasitism on the productive classes. Unfortunately women were enfranchised and within a generation began to vote their reproductive strategy and within fifty years had voted to destroy not only rule of law, not only contract, not only the family, but the civilization itself. The ‘alt-right’ constitutes activists fort he New Right just as the green an anarcist and communists function for the progressive movement, and the evangelicals function for the old right. At the top of these orders are intellectuals like any other movement. Our intellectual base has been forming for a decade or more. And what terrifies the old right, the neo-con right, the libertine-libertarians, and the socialists is, that the alt right is BETTER because at ridicule and propaganda than they are for the simple reason that empirical evidence is on their side. moreover they know that conservatives cannot speak the truth: that their strategy is eugenic. Moreover they know that they have empirical evidence now that the Neocon, lIbertine libertarian, and socialist visions are both constructed as deceptions by appealing to a process of suggestion, and that all of them have been repudiated by cognitive, economic, and behavioral sciences. WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT. The alt right are fighting the pseudoscientists and liars among the sjw’s feminists, socialists, libertines, neoconservatives and the failed program of deception of the traditional conservatives. And instead of arguing optimistically, our defense against deception by suggestion is to prosecute any and all moral claims for possibility of fraud before we even begin to assume that a moral claim is what it pretends to be. The rest of us are inventing the next generation of social science, and the next generation of institutions, the next generation of law – for when we force the abandonment of monopoly majoritarian democracy – not by ideological whining – but by the organized application of violence in demand for the restitution of our natural rights. NO MORE LIES, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDO-MORALISM. Thanks. 😉
-
Coming To The Rescue And Correcting The Libertine Narrative (Fraud) Of History.
(Beware the thief in moral disguise) https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/ 1 – THE COURSE OF HISTORY Domesticating man and woman by the use of organized violence to suppress local parasitism that harms production by increasing transaction costs, to create markets to decrease opportunity costs, and to collect revenues for that suppression of local parasitism, decrease of transaction costs, and decrease in opportunity costs. This suppression of local parasitism which impedes cooperation, and the imposition of law which leaves productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange as the only possible means of survival, can be positioned optimistically as ‘civilizing man’, charitably as ‘domesticating man’, and uncharitably as the martial elite profiting from human husbandry. The net result of domestication is that those regions most successful at human human husbandry, domestication, or civilization – however you choose to cast it – produced the highest trust, highest economic velocity, highest innovation, and the FASTEST evolution of the standard of living in both the ancient and modern worlds. At extremely high cost to those populations who produced that rate of evolutionary innovation. High trust was a very expensive institution to develop using the incremental expansion of the common law for the purpose of preventing retaliation spirals. (feuds). Libertine Libertarians, practicing the non-aggression against material property (intersubjectively verifiable property) expressly prohibit mandatory payment for commons despite making use of markets (free riding) that these commons construct; Furthermore libertine libertarians expressly preserve the rights of blackmail (non productive), fraud (not fully informed), irresponsibility (non-warranty), usury (entrapment), as and even enslavement if it’s voluntarily agreed to, because libertine libertarians claim they are not responsible for the consequences (externalities, and unintended consequences) of their actions. For example, ancient world pagans and new world scientists, using the Non-Parasitism and Non-Retaliation rules of landed warriors innovated at a rate commensurate with the spread of literacy, and their universal ethic of earned -enfranchisement through defense of the commons. Jews by contrast contributed nothing to mankind’s commons in two thousand years, despite their near universal literacy – in no small part because of their voluntarism rather than non retaliationism, their dual ethics, and their specialization in crafts of privatization of commons and socialization of losses. Especially after the Templars, and the west’s first international banking system were destroyed by the Church in order to escape the Pope and his brothers’ debt. Why does a group that pays heavily for a commons 2 – HARMONY VS CONFLICT (THE DECEIT: FRAMING OF HARMONY AND CONFLICT INSTEAD OF UNIVERSALISM VS FAMILISM AND TRIBALISM) It is better if we COOPERATE PRODUCTIVELY than if we engage in conflict that destroys capital and opportunity. It is not better if some of us cooperate productively and contribute to the commons, and some of us pretend to cooperate on one hand and privatize the commons or free ride upon that commons on the other. The purpose of rothbardian libertarianism is to justify parasitism on commons. The purpose of the harmony vs conflict deception is to use suggestion of equal participation in reproductive, productive, and common goods while acting unequally in the participation of reproductive, productive, and common goods. (almost all libertine libertarianism is an attempt to justify parasitic actions of the unequal, while making the moral claim that one is equal in contribution to the civic order we call political government, normative society, and commercial market. Libertine libertarianism is merely another fraud like marxism for the same purpose: theft. This kind of analysis is how westerners must change our high trust framework, so that we are far more analytic, and far more skeptical, about moral pretenses, which are anything but moral – they are appeals to our morality so that we can be defrauded from. ALL GROUPS COMPETE GENETICALLY AND ALL DEMONSTRATE KIN SELECTION. And the less domesticated peoples are always a threat to the more domesticated peoples. PERIOD. 3 – THE DESIGNED VS SELF ORGANIZING DECEPTION Is a false dichotomy. The designed, vs the discover and institutional, vs the normative and adaptive The most successful groups produces three categories of institutions are those we constantly seek to improve: Law(prohibiting), Production(trading), Religion(teaching). That we cannot design law, religion, and production is patently false. We can Limit parasitism, we can advocate cooperation and knowledge, and we can engage in PRODUCTIVE exchange. If we are to say, can we design institutions much more precise than this? Well we certainly have: weights and measures, property rights, legal processes, reason and science rather than mysticism, false moralism, and predatory deceit. We can even industrialize institutions like banking, rule of law, and education. But how precise can we be with them? Well, we cannot design what we should or must do, but we can design what we should not or must not do. That is how we incrementally domesticated mankind into productivity. (We should ask libertine libertarians why they think blackmail – which is voluntary but retaliatory – is moral.) So regarding institutions of cooperation we cannot always say Should and must except preventatively, we can say could and can, and we can say should not and must not. so again, self organization deception is an attempt to preserve the ability to engage in parasitism while under the pretense of moral equality. Again. Libertine libertarians are just parasites. 4 – THE DECEPTION OF FREE MOVEMENT AND FREE TRADE What the classical liberals discovered is that all other things being equal, protectionism in the caste of commodities caused more harm than free trade in commodities caused harm. They did not say all free trade is a good, and no group demonstrates unregulated free trade as a good. In fact the major struggle world wide remains, at every level, the problem of preventing asymmetries in negotiating power that cause externalities and indirect consequences – or in case of economic warfare – substantial externalities and indirect consequences. So it is true that we cannot use protection to extract prices increases through regulation, while at the same time we CAN use protection to prevent costs by externality and indirect consequences. And that is precisely what humans around the world do. We must understand that Rothbardian libertine libertarianism advocates parasitic existence imposing costs upon others, and is profoundly immoral in theory and practice. Wherever possible the libertine seeks to benefit from the high cost of a high trust market while externalizing all the costs that he can from his participation in the market. In other words, a rothbardian libertine libertarian advocates for fraud. 5 – THE OPPRESSION FALLACY REVISITED: EMANCIPATION AND PROGRESS What occurred as a consequence of high trust english common law, was that bacon applied the rigor of that law to the sciences and invented empiricism. Upon the invention of the printing press, a thousand year dark age where the church held men in illiterate, was ended, and knowledge spread across the civilized world, leading first to the agrarian and then to the industrial revolution. Now that the industrial revolution was possible, we could afford to educate and employ more people – albeit slowly – until the petrochemical revolution, which provided us the energy equivalent of endless slave labor that we did not need to clothe and feed. So we could attempt to provide opportunity to many members of most classes who had sufficient character to participate in organized employment. Unfortunately, these people were met with a new ideology of socialism that stated that they had been and were oppressed and that they could rule themselves under the same kind of order that they had in their villages. These people used democracy to vote their reproductive strategy of parasitism on the productive classes. Unfortunately women were enfranchised and within a generation began to vote their reproductive strategy and within fifty years had voted to destroy not only rule of law, not only contract, not only the family, but the civilization itself. The ‘alt-right’ constitutes activists fort he New Right just as the green an anarcist and communists function for the progressive movement, and the evangelicals function for the old right. At the top of these orders are intellectuals like any other movement. Our intellectual base has been forming for a decade or more. And what terrifies the old right, the neo-con right, the libertine-libertarians, and the socialists is, that the alt right is BETTER because at ridicule and propaganda than they are for the simple reason that empirical evidence is on their side. moreover they know that conservatives cannot speak the truth: that their strategy is eugenic. Moreover they know that they have empirical evidence now that the Neocon, lIbertine libertarian, and socialist visions are both constructed as deceptions by appealing to a process of suggestion, and that all of them have been repudiated by cognitive, economic, and behavioral sciences. WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT. The alt right are fighting the pseudoscientists and liars among the sjw’s feminists, socialists, libertines, neoconservatives and the failed program of deception of the traditional conservatives. And instead of arguing optimistically, our defense against deception by suggestion is to prosecute any and all moral claims for possibility of fraud before we even begin to assume that a moral claim is what it pretends to be. The rest of us are inventing the next generation of social science, and the next generation of institutions, the next generation of law – for when we force the abandonment of monopoly majoritarian democracy – not by ideological whining – but by the organized application of violence in demand for the restitution of our natural rights. NO MORE LIES, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDO-MORALISM. Thanks. 😉
-
Doesn’t Everyone Try To Lie Cheat And Steal?
Isn’t libertarianism merely an attempt by the middle class to obtain status and power parity with the judicial-military upper class, without paying the (dear) costs to the relationship to their customers and market that truth, judgment, policing, and warfare entail? Isn’t Jewish libertinism an attempt not only to escape those costs, but the costs of producing the commons AS WELL? Isn’t it necessary for commissions (dividends) from the market produced by the judicial-military imposition of order, just compensation for the high cost to their lives, livelihoods, relationships and families? Isn’t feminism and socialism just an attempt to circumvent the exchange of sex, care, and servitude for the results of the production of order, the production of goods and services, and the production of generations by the family? Aristocracy (martial/judicial – limits ) (organization of cooperation) Priestly (public intellectual – advocacy) (organization of ambitinos) Burgher (organization of production distribution and trade) Family (organization of production of generations) Labor (production of goods and services) (organization of physical reality) Dependent (Young, Infirmed, and Old) Underclass (those who cannot contribute but just cost) Criminal-class (career predators and parasites)
-
Doesn’t Everyone Try To Lie Cheat And Steal?
Isn’t libertarianism merely an attempt by the middle class to obtain status and power parity with the judicial-military upper class, without paying the (dear) costs to the relationship to their customers and market that truth, judgment, policing, and warfare entail? Isn’t Jewish libertinism an attempt not only to escape those costs, but the costs of producing the commons AS WELL? Isn’t it necessary for commissions (dividends) from the market produced by the judicial-military imposition of order, just compensation for the high cost to their lives, livelihoods, relationships and families? Isn’t feminism and socialism just an attempt to circumvent the exchange of sex, care, and servitude for the results of the production of order, the production of goods and services, and the production of generations by the family? Aristocracy (martial/judicial – limits ) (organization of cooperation) Priestly (public intellectual – advocacy) (organization of ambitinos) Burgher (organization of production distribution and trade) Family (organization of production of generations) Labor (production of goods and services) (organization of physical reality) Dependent (Young, Infirmed, and Old) Underclass (those who cannot contribute but just cost) Criminal-class (career predators and parasites)
-
The Languages of Fraud
When you defend your use of philosophical rationalism, your presupposition is the disproportionate value of the communication of meaning(learning), under which we obtain explanatory power and opportunity for persuasion and negotiation; whereas you discount or ignore the equal value of prosecution(prevention), under which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit. It would be all well and good to speak only with ‘good manners’ of positive language, if all men were of manners, ethics, morals, humility, study, achievement, and intelligence. But the central problem of our age – since the industrial revolution – has not been the communication of meaning within the limits of human perception, but the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, now that our action and our institutions can reach beyond the manners and prosecution of the ill-mannered, at human scale. So you may wish to hold to the language of the primitive technologies of reason and meaning, just as others may wish to hold to the primitive technologies of theology and mysticism. But theology consists of little other than parable (analogy) for the purpose of discourse within the limits of pre-existing authority. And Rationalism consists of little other than a subset of reason for the purpose of discourse under the assumption of good intention and good character, independent of cost, and evidence, in order to obscure the cunning and deceit used to impose one’s will upon others by the pretense of truthfulness which is little more than selection bias. In other words, if you wish to speak truthfully, you can communicate by analogy, if and only if you equally criticize by correspondence (truth), such that both the properties necessary for communication but untrue under criticism, and the persuasions necessary for stating preference, but untrue under criticism, and the error, bias, and deceit that we frail humans rely upon in lieu of truthful argument that are untrue under criticism, are laundered and exposed. Men do not seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument because they possess good manners, good ethics, good morals, good actions, and because we have good institutions. Men seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument for the simple reason that they want what they want, by whatever argumentative means is available, and by one cunning argumentative deception or another, they hope to escape blame for their acts of fraud, under pretense of mannered, ethical, moral, and knowing argument. If you cannot speak in operational language, categorically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent, with scope consistency, then either you do not know how to, do not want to pay the costs of speaking truthfully, or if you spoke truthfully your fraud would be obvious. Religion and Philosophy have been disproportionately the source of deception, conflict, and war. Whereas law and science have been disproportionately the source of truth. If you cannot speak in the language of law and science, we can almost without exception assume that you are speaking in the league of fraud. And it is only after we pay the high cost of translating you use of the languages of fraud into the languages of law and science that we can determine whether you engage in fraud or engage in error, or engage in linguistic habit because you simply know no better. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
The Languages of Fraud
When you defend your use of philosophical rationalism, your presupposition is the disproportionate value of the communication of meaning(learning), under which we obtain explanatory power and opportunity for persuasion and negotiation; whereas you discount or ignore the equal value of prosecution(prevention), under which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit. It would be all well and good to speak only with ‘good manners’ of positive language, if all men were of manners, ethics, morals, humility, study, achievement, and intelligence. But the central problem of our age – since the industrial revolution – has not been the communication of meaning within the limits of human perception, but the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, now that our action and our institutions can reach beyond the manners and prosecution of the ill-mannered, at human scale. So you may wish to hold to the language of the primitive technologies of reason and meaning, just as others may wish to hold to the primitive technologies of theology and mysticism. But theology consists of little other than parable (analogy) for the purpose of discourse within the limits of pre-existing authority. And Rationalism consists of little other than a subset of reason for the purpose of discourse under the assumption of good intention and good character, independent of cost, and evidence, in order to obscure the cunning and deceit used to impose one’s will upon others by the pretense of truthfulness which is little more than selection bias. In other words, if you wish to speak truthfully, you can communicate by analogy, if and only if you equally criticize by correspondence (truth), such that both the properties necessary for communication but untrue under criticism, and the persuasions necessary for stating preference, but untrue under criticism, and the error, bias, and deceit that we frail humans rely upon in lieu of truthful argument that are untrue under criticism, are laundered and exposed. Men do not seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument because they possess good manners, good ethics, good morals, good actions, and because we have good institutions. Men seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument for the simple reason that they want what they want, by whatever argumentative means is available, and by one cunning argumentative deception or another, they hope to escape blame for their acts of fraud, under pretense of mannered, ethical, moral, and knowing argument. If you cannot speak in operational language, categorically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent, with scope consistency, then either you do not know how to, do not want to pay the costs of speaking truthfully, or if you spoke truthfully your fraud would be obvious. Religion and Philosophy have been disproportionately the source of deception, conflict, and war. Whereas law and science have been disproportionately the source of truth. If you cannot speak in the language of law and science, we can almost without exception assume that you are speaking in the league of fraud. And it is only after we pay the high cost of translating you use of the languages of fraud into the languages of law and science that we can determine whether you engage in fraud or engage in error, or engage in linguistic habit because you simply know no better. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.