[P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive). Commons=preservation(negative).
Theme: Decidability
-
Property:Positive / Commons:Negative
[P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive). Commons=preservation(negative).
-
Religions Come In Many Forms
[T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.
Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific. -
Religions Come In Many Forms
[T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.
Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific. -
RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict
RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS
To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we requre a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of cognitive labor.
Progressivism: Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible cannot be possible). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology.
I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and unscientific.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-11 07:59:00 UTC
-
Definition of Class: Reproductive Value
(profound) (complete decidability) (objective morality) [S]ocial class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas. There are no morally undecidable questions. It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.
But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things. Or isn’t that the function of philosophy? -
Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs. (And a note on painful births 🙂 )
[A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law. And we can convert all commons to property. And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud. And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism. We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful. 🙂
-
Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs. (And a note on painful births 🙂 )
[A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law. And we can convert all commons to property. And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud. And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism. We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful. 🙂
-
PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS A proof is a test of internal co
PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS
A proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and(c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible.
This extends Critical Rationalism fully to all areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism.
The profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are watching the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization.
If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will construct proofs.
The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off kilter behavior when doing philosophy.
Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable.
I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe nonsense. I’m a just constructing proofs. Proofs are truthful even if they may not be true (complete).
So this is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs.
And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.
Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization.
And we are going to birth it.
And I hope that birth is painful. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:45:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS. Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is
PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS.
Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is a test of existential possibility. It just says something is possible. That’s all it tells you. But just as a proof in math helps you grasp very complex processes, a proof in human action allows you to grasp very complex processes.
Propertarian proofs are not much harder to write than mathematical proofs. There are a very limited number of operations, and a very limited number of categories of property to consider.
Within a year or two I will be able to teach people how to write praxeological ‘proofs’, to either test if something is possible, or challenge whether something is possible.
At that point, psychology will be limited to the study of cognitive biases, and economics will be divided into deceptions (disinformation by policy) and truths (institutional improvements in the means of cooperation).
And we will be able to demonstrate how to write strictly constructed law free of judicial activism.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:59:00 UTC