Theme: Reciprocity

RESPONSE TO STEFAN MOLYNEUX

Sigh. Let’s try an adult conversation, ok?

–“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”–Kant

—“Act only such that you would prefer the behavior universal”— SM, UPB

You seem to think I’m criticizing the Kantian imperative as a test of criminal behaviors. I’m not. I’m saying its insufficient and as a consequence a false promise, baiting into hazard – not that it’s false. I’m saying its half true and because it’s half true the consequences is harmful. The libertarian program baits well meaning fools into hazard just as others are baited into Judaism, christianity and islam, and neoconservatism, marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, and HBD Denialism.

I’m not saying KI, UPB, NAP are false.

I’m saying they’re worse – they’re evil.

0. MORAL

1. FAILURE

2. CAUSE

0. MORAL

a) |COST| (+)Evil < Bad < Criminal < Unethical < Immoral < Amoral > Moral > Ethical > Good > Righteous(+)

b) |MORAL MARKET| Reproductive Moral Bias(Sex) > Genetic Moral Bias(Personality) > Personal Market Value Bias(Class) > Personal moral bias(Strategy) > group moral norms > traditional moral indoctrination > Legal Rules > Inter group moral necessity, evolutionary (survival) necessity.

c) |MORAL DEMAND|: Positiva: rules for the creation and preservation of cooperation. Negativa:rules for the avoidance of loss of cooperation, incentive for retaliation, and incentive for retaliation cycles.

d) |MORAL: Definition|: Satisfaction of Demand for Infallibility by Reciprocity, within the limits of proportionality, within the population of cooperative utility, within the possibility of escaping retaliation.

1 – FAILURE

Repeating the kantian imperative tells us nothing that kant didn’t tell us better. Even such, let’s test it. Where does this rule fail?

“I am Genghis Khan. I prefer everyone fight, r-ape, murder, pillage, burn, so that only the best of us survive.”

“I am Sayyid Qutb. I prefer everyone devote his life to pure islam, and to conduct war of conquest upon all those who do not.”

“I am Karl Marx. I prefer everyone obtain the proceeds of production according to his needs”

“I am Murray Rothbard. I prefer everyone circumvent production of commons, and maximize privatization.”

“I am Betty Friedan. I prefer everyone adopt the female bias, objective, and behavior.”

“I am Jaques Derrida. I prefer we all practice universal relativism so that together we may obtain power by prohibiting claims of truth and merit”

And that’s within the meaning of ‘universal’. Then we get to the obvious distinction between those who do not consider others the same:

“I am Je of Apinajé. I prefer every one of my men fight and kill as many Aparai so that the Apinaje will have more land, and we do not fear the Aparai.”

“I am Dumnorix I prefer every one of us kill the other’s men, enslave the women, take the metal, cattle, and lands until all land is ours”

And that before we get to those behaviors that are universally preferable because the prohibition of them is universally unpreferable:

– Reproduction? (dysgenia)

– Redistribution? (proportionality)

– Free Riding? Rent Seeking.

– Competition in norms traditions religions (institutions)

– Lying? Fictionalisms? False Promise? Virtue Signaling? (disinformation)

– Cheating?

– Price gouging?

– Blackmail?

– What about Baiting into Hazard? All monotheistic religion, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, make use of baiting into hazard.

“SOURCES OF IGNORANCE”

Sophistry is a source of ignorance. Philosophical rationalism is a source of ignorance. Theology is a source of ignorance. There are no shortcuts to knowledge, You pay for them.

You can choose the truth: Action: Law, Testimony, Science, Mathematics. You can choose sophistry (philosophy), you can choose supernatural sophistry(Theology) or you can choose pseudoscience.

You can choose – but some of us will hold you accountable for the harm you do.

2 – CAUSE

WHY?

The kantian imperative (and the upb, and NAP) test only the reductive and trivial. it tests Crime maybe, ethics less so, morality not at all, consequence is intentionally off the table. There is no disagreement on the obvious. But there is no need to justify the obvious either. It’s the non-obvious that is the source of political conflict.

We are, our lives are, far more affected by political conflict than we are by the obvious – which is no more difficult than the silver rule for the outgroup plus the golden rule for the ingroup.

We all exist in a continuous market competition between the legal, normative, and interpersonal limitations on our irreciprocity (free riding, parasitism, predation. across the criminal, unethical, immoral, and evil) and humans demonstrably practice the minimum avoidance of the criminal, unethical, and immoral. We signal morality to generate opportunity within our preferred moral biases. But we deliver on that signal as little as we can get away with without retaliation.

APPEAL TO INTUITION

UPB, KI, Rothbardianism, neoconservatism, Marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism all appeal to our intuitions – the animal. They do not provide us with decidability.

HOW

SUGGESTION AND ARBITRARY SUBSTITUTION

So what door do the KI, UPB, NAP leave open? Suggestion and arbitrary substitution.

The incompleteness (Half Truth) leaves open the door for suggestion under which the well meaning fool presumes he agrees, but by agreement prohibits him from further knowledge gain. The more repetition of this half truth the more damned he becomes by the trap of feeling confidence in explanatory power that is only half true and blinds him to the full truth – which is often the very opposite of the false promise of the knowledge he presumes to have.

Because KI, UPB, and NAP leave open the door to arbitrary substitution, they are limited to the trivial, and fail to solve the meaningful.

This is the same problem I had with hoppe: everything after the justification is fine. But the justification was ridiculous. instead of hanging his hat on his application he hung it on his justification. Same problem I have with your work. It’s weak. The whole libertarian, ancap, reactionary program is weak.

Humans converge on that imperative within the limits of their geographic, demographic, conomic, military, institutional, familial, and cultural method of organizing.

THERE ARE NO ADVANCED THINKERS IN LIBERTARIANISM.

Why? It fails.

It’s just another version of pilpul

UPB, KI, and Rothbardianism are false – it’s worse. THEY”RE EVIL. Insidiously so. Insidiously evil. They prey on western man and woman’s high trust.

THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO MOLYNEUX – OUT OF NECESSITY NOT WANT

But is UPB in fact a test he claims it to be?

It’s not.

—“People expect too much from UPB, it merely demonstrates that rape, theft, etc. and other asymmetric actions can’t be UPB. … In that sense it is naive, as it accomplishes very little. And in the mean time Stefan has failed to expand it, which we all sorta wanted.”—@LLaddon

UPB like Rothbardianism is a case of baiting into hazard. Nothing meaningful is answered by UPB or The Kantian Imperative. Worse, it’s open to substitution. So UPB, like KI and Rothbardianism isn’t false. It’s worse. It’s evil.

How is that for a repositioning?

So ‘people expect too much’ of not being lead by the pied piper? People expect to much of not being told heroin is addictive?

UPB, KI, Rothbardian Libertarianism are just another false promise, baiting well meaning fools into hazard, advancing the strategy of the enemy using the enemy’s favorite technique: sewing conflict by false promise.

(Under P-Law you are accountable for a failure of due diligence against baiting into hazard.)

Moly did nothing Kant didn’t do better. Kant gave us Marx who gave us Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Friedan, Rothbard – and Molyneux. Continental rationalism is just jewish pilpul via Christianity

So I was trying (for two years now) to avoid doing to Molyneux what I did to mises, rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe. Because I wanted to preserve his utility in shifting the well meaning fools.

But. I guess, I’m just going to have to take out his foundations entirely instead.

Sophistry is anti-european. The Law is the Law, Testimony is produced by science. Science is the process of discovery. And Mathematics is its measure.

No more sophistry.

Philosophy – in the sense f philosophical rationalism – is dead.