—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Theme: Property
-
Propertarianism Is Falsifiable but Very Difficult to Falsify
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
-
WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce
WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER
We are going to destroy them you know:
1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents.
2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words.
3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos).
4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it.
5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit.
6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends.
This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking.
This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit.
It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale.
Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear.
Huge reallocation of intellectual capital.
Huge reduction in propaganda.
Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books.
STARVE THE BEAST.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 16:35:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY —“Since you pride
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:20:00 UTC
-
When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong
(REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.
-
When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong
(REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.
-
SOUTH AFRICA – SEPARATISM People have conquered one another since time immemoria
SOUTH AFRICA – SEPARATISM
People have conquered one another since time immemorial. Intertemporal restitution is rather ridiculous concept. When white people conquered in the pre-historic world they killed most everyone they met. when white people conquered in the modern world they attempted to ‘civilize’ the people they met, for fun and profit – mostly profit. Cause domesticated humans are extremely profitable. Although at least in the americas, because of disease they killed almost everyone.
I am not making excuses for my (white) people. I seek happiness for us all. and I want all people to prosper. However, when there are great differences between us this always creates conflict.
In other words (a) it’s not clear that separation is not better, (b) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without separation, (c) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without the white settlers.(d) and murdering each other is not a good answer to anything – it’s not the colonial era. We know all people can develop market civilizations if they have time to develop a middle class.
My personal view is that the Boers should relocate to America, Australia (best), or Russia (who wants them). And moreover that Africans in Europe and America Return. (and middle easterners return) And that we pay people even if we must use debt to do the returns.
I don’t want your people harmed or mine. But I don’t believe given the very big differences, that it is easy to do anything other than separate. And I am not sure it is a good thing to stay together.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 17:10:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALM
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)
Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.
And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).
And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.
And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.
IT’S NOT COMPLICATED
Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.
But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).
Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.
So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.
the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.
So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.
There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.
That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.
The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.
In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.
Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 17:08:17 UTC
-
WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY) Any cr
WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)
Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.
And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).
And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.
And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.
IT’S NOT COMPLICATED
Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.
But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).
Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.
So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.
the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.
So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.
There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.
That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.
The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.
In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.
Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 13:08:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 21:04:36 UTC