(I bet The Law of Nature is more popular in China than the west. They don’t live in denial. They just lie a lot to make reality tolerable.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 04:24:00 UTC
(I bet The Law of Nature is more popular in China than the west. They don’t live in denial. They just lie a lot to make reality tolerable.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 04:24:00 UTC
| EUGENIC (truth) | vs | DYSGENIC (lies) |
|---|---|---|
| Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy | Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) |
| EUGENIC (truth) | vs | DYSGENIC (lies) |
|---|---|---|
| Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy | Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) |
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfbWHAT DOES DOOLITTLE THINK ABOUT PSEUDOSCIENCE?
–“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy ;-)”–
–“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! :D”–
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol 😉
DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE
I call this, ‘new age mysticism’.
—“Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.
Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?
Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”—
A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST
1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information).
2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.)
3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.)
4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost.
5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them.
7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time.
ANALOGY:PUZZLES
Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake.
Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories )
So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time.
It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not.
If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing.
(I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.)
(yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences)
A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES
So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all.
A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS
We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently.
THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY
So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality.
By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups.
The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons.
If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest.
SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE
So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other.
WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM
In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism.
THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI)
Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories.
Here is wikipedia:
—“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.
In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.
According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”
Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”—
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:17:00 UTC
Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
|
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. ) |
I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
|
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. ) |
I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.
Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.