–“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”— I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments? It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie. Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow. So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future? Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech. But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was. What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false. IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons. Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’. So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech. It’s just the opposite. We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.
Theme: Property
-
Why Is Redistribution Necessary?
Q: —Why is redistribution necessary?– Because we don’t get people to respect property rights for free if they have no incentive to. Just like they doing get us to bear the burden of supporting them if we have no incentive to. So trading behavior for money is just an exchange.
-
Why Is Redistribution Necessary?
Q: —Why is redistribution necessary?– Because we don’t get people to respect property rights for free if they have no incentive to. Just like they doing get us to bear the burden of supporting them if we have no incentive to. So trading behavior for money is just an exchange.
-
Enfranchising : (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not full
Enfranchising: (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not fully integrated into:
- (i) Christian ethics
- (ii) Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal application, strict construction
- (iii) the absolute nuclear family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and commons
- (iv) individual economic responsibility
without : (d) giving each a new house of parliament/government. The english system of multiple houses created a **market** for the construction of commons between the classes. Creating majoritarian single-house democracy created** majority tyranny**, and put the lowest classes with the largest numbers in control of government and has destroyed western civilizations’ historical dependence upon empiricism in under a century. This required we basically develop propaganda, ideology, and deception in order to rule underclasses by vote. This single decision, made in the euphoria of the proceeds of the industrial revolution, caused the destruction of western civilization.
-
Enfranchising : (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not full
Enfranchising: (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not fully integrated into:
- (i) Christian ethics
- (ii) Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal application, strict construction
- (iii) the absolute nuclear family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and commons
- (iv) individual economic responsibility
without : (d) giving each a new house of parliament/government. The english system of multiple houses created a **market** for the construction of commons between the classes. Creating majoritarian single-house democracy created** majority tyranny**, and put the lowest classes with the largest numbers in control of government and has destroyed western civilizations’ historical dependence upon empiricism in under a century. This required we basically develop propaganda, ideology, and deception in order to rule underclasses by vote. This single decision, made in the euphoria of the proceeds of the industrial revolution, caused the destruction of western civilization.
-
Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.
Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers
-
Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.
Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers
-
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.
-
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.
-
Notes On Various Topics
Sep 04, 2016 12:26pm 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