ONE HOUR LECTURES ON BASIC PROPERTARIAN CONCEPTS I’m trying to make one every day or two. There are not that many basic concepts. I can think of the easy one: property in toto. That logically follows from my last one on Morality. We have videos on: 1 – division of perception, 2 – morality: objective (decidable across differences), group (evolutionary strategy), individual (reproductive strategy) 3 – cooperation as consolidation of knowledge across perception. division of classes into methods of discourse, 4 – civilizational strategies based upon geography and demographics. 5 – and division of civilizations from America to Russia into a distribution of perception – specialization by civilization. (I might add that america and russia must now parent europa) If I add property, and cover from the origins, then I think those six videos will constitute the equivalent of propertarian ‘social science’. Then I can do institutions 1 – incremental suppression and law 2 – market government 3 – the family 4 – the defensive ‘walls’ (religion(conversion), parasitism (economic), invasion(demographic), and war(violence). Between humans and institutions I should create a series on truth. I know I need to do one on truth and particularly focus on scope and limits. This fascinates me and it’s one of the most important concepts. – honesty and truthfulness. – truth as warranties of due diligence – the defensive ‘walls’ against deception and error – adding the informational commons to protections – strict construction of law Then lastly I should create – demands – method of transition – instructions for insurrection (and I will do that last since I’m gonna get killed for it) Thanks for letting me think out loud.
Theme: Education
-
Thinking About Future Talks
ONE HOUR LECTURES ON BASIC PROPERTARIAN CONCEPTS I’m trying to make one every day or two. There are not that many basic concepts. I can think of the easy one: property in toto. That logically follows from my last one on Morality. We have videos on: 1 – division of perception, 2 – morality: objective (decidable across differences), group (evolutionary strategy), individual (reproductive strategy) 3 – cooperation as consolidation of knowledge across perception. division of classes into methods of discourse, 4 – civilizational strategies based upon geography and demographics. 5 – and division of civilizations from America to Russia into a distribution of perception – specialization by civilization. (I might add that america and russia must now parent europa) If I add property, and cover from the origins, then I think those six videos will constitute the equivalent of propertarian ‘social science’. Then I can do institutions 1 – incremental suppression and law 2 – market government 3 – the family 4 – the defensive ‘walls’ (religion(conversion), parasitism (economic), invasion(demographic), and war(violence). Between humans and institutions I should create a series on truth. I know I need to do one on truth and particularly focus on scope and limits. This fascinates me and it’s one of the most important concepts. – honesty and truthfulness. – truth as warranties of due diligence – the defensive ‘walls’ against deception and error – adding the informational commons to protections – strict construction of law Then lastly I should create – demands – method of transition – instructions for insurrection (and I will do that last since I’m gonna get killed for it) Thanks for letting me think out loud.
-
Videos and Podcasts
[vc_row][vc_column][thim-heading title=”John Mark’s Videos on Propertarianism” title_uppercase=”” sub_heading=”Page through the series and learn Propertarianism from John Mark.” clone_title=”” line=”true” text_align=”text-center”][vc_tta_pageable no_fill_content_area=”1″ active_section=”1″ pagination_color=”orange” css_animation=”fadeIn”][vc_tta_section title=”Section 1″ tab_id=”1568413048132-c8a43882-d8bb”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbl5cCWOnt8″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section 2″ tab_id=”1568413048132-515d2cc2-dd6b”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdRc6WwuB4″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413396512-d269116a-8fd0″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2p3LW2i2I&t=196s”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413435080-41c8045d-25d9″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ZmIppQSZQ”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413488667-be85881c-babf”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwTtYabdqBk”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413542752-807a939e-0b71″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1a3yognr_E”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413597987-9420332a-8034″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413668216-49649312-f1bc”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZrWRd3m5Y”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413729386-edc1fb68-a24d”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBj6UpdxARY&”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568494100494-26db50f3-3d51″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tckY5Wsc3g”][/vc_tta_section][/vc_tta_pageable][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]JOHN MARK’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIGlVALFPYRROlXk511Cfhw/videos
JOHN MARK’S BITCHUTE CHANNEL
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/johnmark/
CURT DOOLITTLE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/user/DeAristocratia/playlistsCURT DOOLITTLE’S INTERVIEWS
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnyifULzMnvlP_jZqlUDSwQnE1A7YPBd7THE PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE’S VIDEOS ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/pg/thepropertarianinstitute/videos/THE PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE’S VIDEOS ON BITCHUTE
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/propertarianinstitute/
PROPERTARIAN AUDIO: READINGS OF CORE CONCEPTS BY RICK TURPIN
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9CN7q2-cZiPFEfbZekEkA
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
-
Videos and Podcasts
[vc_row][vc_column][thim-heading title=”John Mark’s Videos on Propertarianism” title_uppercase=”” sub_heading=”Page through the series and learn Propertarianism from John Mark.” clone_title=”” line=”true” text_align=”text-center”][vc_tta_pageable no_fill_content_area=”1″ active_section=”1″ pagination_color=”orange” css_animation=”fadeIn”][vc_tta_section title=”Section 1″ tab_id=”1568413048132-c8a43882-d8bb”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbl5cCWOnt8″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section 2″ tab_id=”1568413048132-515d2cc2-dd6b”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdRc6WwuB4″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413396512-d269116a-8fd0″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2p3LW2i2I&t=196s”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413435080-41c8045d-25d9″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ZmIppQSZQ”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413488667-be85881c-babf”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwTtYabdqBk”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413542752-807a939e-0b71″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1a3yognr_E”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413597987-9420332a-8034″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8″][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413668216-49649312-f1bc”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZrWRd3m5Y”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568413729386-edc1fb68-a24d”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBj6UpdxARY&”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Section” tab_id=”1568494100494-26db50f3-3d51″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tckY5Wsc3g”][/vc_tta_section][/vc_tta_pageable][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]JOHN MARK’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIGlVALFPYRROlXk511Cfhw/videos
JOHN MARK’S BITCHUTE CHANNEL
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/johnmark/
CURT DOOLITTLE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/user/DeAristocratia/playlistsCURT DOOLITTLE’S INTERVIEWS
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnyifULzMnvlP_jZqlUDSwQnE1A7YPBd7THE PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE’S VIDEOS ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/pg/thepropertarianinstitute/videos/THE PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE’S VIDEOS ON BITCHUTE
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/propertarianinstitute/
PROPERTARIAN AUDIO: READINGS OF CORE CONCEPTS BY RICK TURPIN
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9CN7q2-cZiPFEfbZekEkA
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
-
Restoring Civic Organizations
RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPOLY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY. We need to force the creation of (a) monasteries (education and caretaking) in the ‘scientific’ sense, and (b) regiments (emergency and defense), and (c) civic dormitories (commons construction and maintenance). These places need to provide room and board to men of character in each class, in exchange for civic labor. Strict behavioral requirements, preserving the sacredness of the commons, (and suppressing impulse), Privately managed non-profits (leaving membership discretionary and without state interference). They will absorb the excess male population that will only serve to increase, increase the scarcity of marriageable males, reduce the size and cost of the state, reduce the cost of commons construction and maintenance, improve the general health and welfare, allow us to return to handcrafted hand-maintained commons.And restore civic ‘ownership’. If in addition, we eliminate child support and alimony, the family will be restored in one or two generations. And where it isn’t we don’t need it to be.
I have learned a great deal living on this side of the pond. The old ways assisted families in classes in compatibility, they were not industrialized societies trying to mass produce middle class from variously incompatible raw materials. -
Restoring Civic Organizations
RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPOLY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY. We need to force the creation of (a) monasteries (education and caretaking) in the ‘scientific’ sense, and (b) regiments (emergency and defense), and (c) civic dormitories (commons construction and maintenance). These places need to provide room and board to men of character in each class, in exchange for civic labor. Strict behavioral requirements, preserving the sacredness of the commons, (and suppressing impulse), Privately managed non-profits (leaving membership discretionary and without state interference). They will absorb the excess male population that will only serve to increase, increase the scarcity of marriageable males, reduce the size and cost of the state, reduce the cost of commons construction and maintenance, improve the general health and welfare, allow us to return to handcrafted hand-maintained commons.And restore civic ‘ownership’. If in addition, we eliminate child support and alimony, the family will be restored in one or two generations. And where it isn’t we don’t need it to be.
I have learned a great deal living on this side of the pond. The old ways assisted families in classes in compatibility, they were not industrialized societies trying to mass produce middle class from variously incompatible raw materials. -
Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?
WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.
2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers -
Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?
WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.
2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers -
We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit
In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.—“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks
-
We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit
In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.—“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks