Theme: Demonstrated Interests

  • Mythical Extremes, Demonstrated Regularities

    Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost: we tell stories of great achievement because it is the only possible way of conveying heroism: desirable action at the extremes. We teach the valuable exceptions that produce the valuable rewards for high risk. We do not tell people stories of regularities that are in evidence around us every day. This is why history consists of irregularities (innovations), and why existence consists of regularities (productions). Men innovate(disrupt) through extremes and women operate (produce generations) through regularities. And we have evolved such that our gender’s abilities serve the needs.

    If you look at the 20th century. By all possible measures, women are failing at their duties. At present, it might also be that men are – if we let ourselves be conquered in order to please the folly of our women. We are not equal. Like an army we must all do our jobs if we are to survive.
  • Mythical Extremes, Demonstrated Regularities

    Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost: we tell stories of great achievement because it is the only possible way of conveying heroism: desirable action at the extremes. We teach the valuable exceptions that produce the valuable rewards for high risk. We do not tell people stories of regularities that are in evidence around us every day. This is why history consists of irregularities (innovations), and why existence consists of regularities (productions). Men innovate(disrupt) through extremes and women operate (produce generations) through regularities. And we have evolved such that our gender’s abilities serve the needs.

    If you look at the 20th century. By all possible measures, women are failing at their duties. At present, it might also be that men are – if we let ourselves be conquered in order to please the folly of our women. We are not equal. Like an army we must all do our jobs if we are to survive.
  • Color me humbled, appreciative, and in awe. Great work. NOTES FOR YOUR USE: PROP

    Color me humbled, appreciative, and in awe. Great work.

    NOTES FOR YOUR USE:

    PROPERTY IN TOTO

    – The academy uses ‘reported’ vs ‘stated’ preference. We correctly use ‘demonstrated’ preference.

    – Why do you have the right to depreciate the normative values others have invested in as a flag? I mean, if I bore a cost to create a norm, and there is nothing false in the norm, then why is it you can cause damage to the norm? This is how people treat symbols. So if free speech is lmited to truthful speech, then these are not questions any longer.

    – Natural Property = that which we expend time, effor,t resources, risk, to obtain without imposing costs upon that which otheres have expended time, effort, resources, risk, to obtain

    – Starting with the choice of predation, parasitism, boycott, cooperation, or buying options on future cooperation.

    – The strong are always paying the cost of non-parasitism, non-predation upon you. THe only reason to refrain from non-parasitism and non-predation is if you boycott, cooperate, or buy options on the future of cooperation. The question is, then, what’s the limit of things you agree not to engage in non-parasitism and non-predation against? Well, it depends upon the terms of your existing social order. If you have a low trust order with no commons, or a high trust order with lots of commons, you defend that what you’ve invested in. If you’ve invested in high trust high commons society, then you defend those things that comprise it. If you don’t then you don’t defend, and you act parasiticall against them. This is what high trust people object to: parasitism upon their investment in the high trust commons. And high trust peoples are stronger for the simple reason that they are wealthier and can produce more competitive commons – not the least of which is warfare.

    This is why polities with different (lower and higher) property definitions are not compatible.

    TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    The purpose of testimonial Truth To state how to construct contract, legislation, and law, and how to promote contract, legislation, and law, such that it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.

    Once we have testimonial truth, we can treat information – like air, land, and water – as a commons. We can grant people universal standing in matters of the commons. And preserve universal applicability to all people. This creates a market with both opportunity to issue ideas, and juridical defense against fraudulent and harmful ideas. (scientists do this already really). We could not limit speech to truthful speech without a legally testable criteria. Testimonialism provides lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges with criteria that can be stated in law and adjudicated like many other laws.

    Normative adoption of testimonialism would produce giant gains equal to *science over mysticism*.

    We are feeling the effects of the second great deception. The first was monotheistic utopian mysticism, and the second has been pseudoscientific utopianism. So it’s not just that I want to eliminate error. It’s that I want to eliminate deception in all its unconsious, justifiationary, wishful, and intentional forms. THat requires we elminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propagandizing and deceit.

    MORALISMS(APPROVAL) VS EMPIRICISM (TRUTH)

    Separating approval and disapproval, truth and falsehood, so that we can conduct trades. Approval is on ly necessary in small groups. Everything else requries just truth and exchange. The reason we must engage in approval and disapproval, is only when we are determining the use of common property. If we are discussing private property then approval is irrelevant. If we are trying to determine the use of common property at scale, we can only do that through truth and trade and full accounting, not approval or disapproval.

    BLOCK’S IMMORALITY

    Even if we say that someone has the right to use drugs, does that mean you have the right to SELL them drugs? So if you grow your own pot, smoke it at home, and don’t operate machinery or impose sound or light or behavioral costs on your neighbors, then that’s fine. I am not sure how one could make the argument that he has the right to sell goods that will lead to harm regardless of the individual’s volition.

    This same strategy applies to copyrights and the creative commons licenses. I can understand prohibiting profiting from the creative works of others, but I can’t understand how you can prohibit someone from copying something for personal use. Conversely, I don’t see how you can claim you have a right to profit from creations of ideas – unless the polity has provided off book compensation to if you’re conducting basic research.

    INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION

    The use of the natural, common, judge-discovered law, markets for reproduction(marriage), markets for goods and services, markets for commons, allows for the most rapid identification of new forms of parasitism and predation, and their immediate prohibition with the first case adjudicated. This allows societies to adapt positively (markets) and negatively (courts) faster than any OTHER POSSIBLE method of cooperation. Furthermore, since there are not AGGREGATES involved in the prodcess of case by case adjudication, and no CONSENT necessary for the production of reproduction, consumption, and commons, then public discourse an remain EMPIRICAL rather than AGGREGATE (moral, religious, allegorical).

    So this is the reason that the west developed FASTER in the ancient and modern worlds, than the rest of the world. This is the secret of the west. Sovereignty, Truth, Jury, Judge, natural, jduge discovered, common law, and as a consequence, the only possible means of cooperation under sovereignty, truth, jury, judge, natural, judge-discovered common law, is markets for reproduction (marriage), markets for production, markets for commons, market for dispute resolution, and the militia that fights together.

    Democracy then is antithetical since by eliminating the multi-house-government, and engaging in reproductoin, we have destroyed secred of the western excelllence.

    Thanks


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-04 05:26:00 UTC

  • PSYCHOLOGISM VS INCENTIVES I tend to ignore psychological states, and stick with

    PSYCHOLOGISM VS INCENTIVES

    I tend to ignore psychological states, and stick with observed actions, since reported ‘belief’ and demonstrated behavior are so widely different. So I would say you can insure something yourself at which point you do not have rights or property, only things under your control given the amount of resistance you can put up, versus when you and your possessions are insured by a group, where you have rights to call upon them to increase the amount of resistance you can put up.

    As David Mondrus has suggested, this is the dividing line between libertarianism and propertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:13:00 UTC

  • IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifia

    IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T.

    Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. it’s not justifiable but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief.

    In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”.

    THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)

    I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.

    I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.

    As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.

    As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.

    As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.

    As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.

    There is no possible justification for belief.

    There is possible justification for moral action according to norms.

    There is possible justification for legal action according to laws.

    But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy.

    Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language.

    But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda.

    (ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.)

    So to speak truthfully requries we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak eitehr in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, becasue we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especialy in empire america.

    If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did.

    Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. πŸ˜‰

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 14:00:00 UTC

  • All propositions of self-interest must be perceptible, comprehendible, and prefe

    All propositions of self-interest must be perceptible, comprehendible, and preferable to alternative propositions of self-interest.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 08:54:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766196541413593088

    Reply addressees: @mfckr_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766196253151551488


    IN REPLY TO:

    @mfckr_

    @curtdoolittle Incredibly frustrating though. The highly implicit nature of what’s beset against people’s self-interest makes it difficult

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766196253151551488

  • Are The Republican And Democratic Parties In The Us Actually One Party Controlled By Special Interests?

    Think about how illogical the term special interests is

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Republican-and-Democratic-parties-in-the-US-actually-one-party-controlled-by-special-interests

  • Are The Republican And Democratic Parties In The Us Actually One Party Controlled By Special Interests?

    Think about how illogical the term special interests is

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Republican-and-Democratic-parties-in-the-US-actually-one-party-controlled-by-special-interests

  • How Does A President Lead A Country Fairly And Democratically With So Many People Having Mixed Agendas, Ideas And Opinions?

    It’s impossible, since democracy is only capable of selecting priorities among people with homogenous interests, and impossible to select between conflicting choices among people with heterogeneous interests.

    Markets let us cooperate on means despite different ends – no monopolies.

    Democracy is a monopoly in which we cannot cooperate on means because of different ends.

    Democracy has been a catastrophe.

    The original anglo model was not democratic but consisted of different HOUSES for each CLASS, including the CHURCH, so that Monarchy, regional managers, personal property owners, and common people(church) could negotiate EXCHANGES between the classes.

    The English system created a market under which most can be satisfied. Democracy destroyed it by creating a monopoly under which no one can be satisfied.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-President-lead-a-country-fairly-and-democratically-with-so-many-people-having-mixed-agendas-ideas-and-opinions

  • Is Govt controlled by GOP? How would you demonstrate that?

    Is Govt controlled by GOP? How would you demonstrate that?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:43:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348322739716096

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton @mamasaurusof2 @cmandrecyk @CookPolitical @dmataconis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348059937058817


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable β€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348059937058817